Cost of a Manned Mission?[edit] <\/p>\n
Is there any reliable information about the cost of a manned mission to mars? I think it would be useful to include in the article. <\/p>\n
For anyone who digs this up, two ideas would be: <\/p>\n
Q: How much will sending humans to Mars cost? A: Estimates of the cost of a human Mars exploration program over the years have been wildly disparate, leaving much confusion in their wake. On the high end of the scale was the Space Exploration Initiative proposed by President George H. W. Bush in 1989 at $450 billion; Mars Direct occupies the low end of the scale at roughly $30 billion. - http:\/\/www.marssociety.org\/portal\/c\/faq<\/a> <\/p>\n -Lexspoon 12:51, 20 June 2007 (UTC) <\/p>\n I know many are already aware that both \"colonization\" and \"colonisation\" are valid ways of spelling the word. Nevertheless, I thought it would be nice to make a note of it here since I noticed some people changing things to reflect one particular spelling. This may be done for the sake of consistency, but, in that case, it should be noted that the wikipedia article for the term is listed under Colonisation. --Xaliqen <\/p>\n Consideration ought to be given to retitling this entry \"Settlement of Mars\" rather than coloniz\/sation, given the negative connotations the word \"colonization\" engenders in political discussion. Inevitably -- amazingly -- such diversionary concerns arise when discussing Martian settlement. Ericmachmer (talk) 21:48, 29 December 2009 (UTC) <\/p>\n The possibility of terraforming plays a great part all over the article. However, I'm in doubt about its feasibility. For one thing I believe it takes too long to wait for the results, and nobody is willing to invest a dollar into something that possibly (!) returns in some hundred or may be thousand years. For another, there is good reason Mars having such a thin atmosphere today. The long term stability of a terraformed environment is pretty unlikely. All this about the terraforming thing seems to be science fiction, while the colonization is not. So, how about reducing the idea of terraforming to a small paragraph with a link to the main article Terraforming of Mars? The whole article would be more believable if it concentrates strictly on technology that is in reach of men. -- The Cascade (talk) 08:04, 12 March 2008 (UTC) <\/p>\n Yes, our presence will change the Martian environment, there is no doubt about it. I would not call this unintentional influence terraforming, because it surely does not aim to make Mars resemble Terra. Neither I would expect the unintentional changes to leed even into this direction. No, our presence will not terraform Mars. Probably, our presence will dirtyform it. <\/p>\n Still this is not what I meant. The article describes intentional terraforming. Sure, it is much easier to live on a terraformed Mars, but yet it is not possible with our current knowledge and technology. There are ideas, but nobody knows about the viability. It's too premature. I find it nice to have that article Terraforming of Mars. It is a good article, and I definitely want to keep it, even grow it bigger, concentrate all available info in it. However, the article Colonization of Mars points to a more realistic scenario. It describes many ideas to colonize the planet without the need for terraforming, which is possible with known technology. I wouldn't want to describe terraforming here as inevitable, which is not at all. I find terraforming too fantastic, and my impression is that it makes the article somehow fantastic, too. I'd rather want the article be realistic. -- The Cascade (talk) 14:48, 12 March 2008 (UTC) <\/p>\n Sorry for being rude. And offensive for that matter... first of all the green house gases: Mars has a lots of it. atmosphere consists of >95% CO2. and there is frozen CO2 all over the planet... thats just not the reason why the atmosphere is so thin. <\/p>\n there are mainly two reasons: <\/p>\n 1. mars is too small to keep a dense atmosphere. just not enough gravity to keep it. <\/p>\n 2. no magnetic field. the charged particles from the sun (sun wind) just \"blow\" away the atmosphere. <\/p>\n We can think about a solution for (2), like building a superconductor coil around the equator. But because of (1) this wont help in the long run... terraforming mars is a nice dream. but as long as we dont invent a seriously new kind physics, it will be a dream.. <\/p>\n Anyway i think it is good to mention the historical ideas about terraforming, just please also mention that it is just nowhere close to be imaginable for someone who studied physics. <\/p>\n 135.196.213.146 (talk) 17:17, 25 January 2011 (UTC) <\/p>\n CAN MARS KEEP AN ATMOSPHERE? <\/p>\n Mars surface gravity is high enough to keep all gases except Hydrogen, Helium and Water. Further, water stays in the troposphere, (because of the cold trap), and is not normally lost to thermal escape. Mars HAS lost about 15 meters of water globally, but most of this was from UV light disassociating water into hydrogen and oxygen, with the hydrogen being quickly lost. If Mars was to have an oxygen atmosphere (and an ozone layer), it would keep its water for billions of years. In fact, even with out an oxygen atmosphere, Mars has kept its water for billions of years. Plenty of water is in its ice caps and as permafrost. It has not lost all of its water from thermal escape or any other method. <\/p>\n Scientists have shown that worlds with no magnetic field lose tiny amounts of air from solar wind erosion. This adds up over billions of years. However, it is not something that terraformers have to worry about over hundred of millions of year time scales. (100 million years is far longer than the lifetime of our species.) <\/p>\n Venus has no magnetic field and a solar flux more than 5 times what Mars has but it has not lost its atmosphere. Mercury has quite a strong magnetic field and basically has no atmosphere. The meme that no magnetic field = no atmosphere is far too simplistic. Venus is an obvious disproof of this idea. <\/p>\n Scientists think Mars had a 3 or 4 bar atmosphere early in its life and estimate that about 75% to 80% of this was lost to the solar wind. (The solar wind was ~100 times stronger at the start of the solar system and ~6 times stronger ~2.5 billion years ago.) Since it now has an atmosphere of 1\/100th of a bar, where is its air? <\/p>\n In the soil. Lightning and UV radiation will form nitrates. On Earth these are recycled quickly by life. But in some regions like the Gobi desert, the nitrate beds are very deep. (Dozens of meters deep if I remember correctly, don't quote me.) On Mars, most of the nitrogen was not lost, it has been deposited in the soil. Oxygen is too heavy for thermal escape, but will react with rocks or with salts to form perchlorates. Carbon dioxide will form carbonate rocks, be absorbed into CO2 clathrates, and be dissolved in ground water and form ice caps. Further, clays which are common on Mars will absorb carbon dioxide when they get cold, typically 4 to 6% by mass. Most of Mars' atmosphere is in its soils and rocks. <\/p>\n If terraformers brought Mars atmosphere up to 1 bar pressure by dropping comets onto the planet, it would take 2 to 3 billion years of solar wind sputtering to reduce its air pressure to the point where humans still would NOT need a pressure suit. (Tho the pressure would be too low for humans to breath.) (This assumes that the Sun's solar wind continues to decline or at least stays the same.) Claiming that we can't live on a Terraformed Mars because the solar wind will erode the atmosphere in 2.5 billion years when the Earth's biosphere won't survive 800 mi I'll track down more references for these statements later. Out of time. <\/p>\n http:\/\/people.virginia.edu\/~rej\/papers03\/Leblanc01.pdf<\/a> <\/p>\n \"Life and Death of Planet Earth, The: How The New Science Of Astrobiology Charts The Ultimate Fate\" by Peter D Ward & Don Brownlee. \/\/ They show multicellar life likely won't last 1\/2 a billion years on Earth as the sun warms. <\/p>\n http:\/\/abyss.uoregon.edu\/~js\/ast121\/lectures\/lec14.html<\/a> <\/p>\n http:\/\/www.nature.com\/nature\/journal\/v272\/n5656\/pdf\/272803a0.pdf<\/a> <\/p>\n http:\/\/articles.adsabs.harvard.edu\/full\/1980LPSC<\/a>...11.2479W <\/p>\n \"Mars: A Warmer Wetter Planet\" by Jeffrey S. Kargel \/\/ Discussed MEGAOUTFLO events in the past when the atmosphere in the soil out gases. Also talks about the 3 to 4 bar early Martian atmosphere & the martian water budget. <\/p>\n Warm regards, Rick. 65.110.28.47 (talk) 15:51, 27 May 2011 (UTC) <\/p>\n I think that the discussion of economics on this page pays too much attention to ways that Earth could economically supplement life on Mars, and not enough attention to how Mars could supplement Earth. It mentions trade between Earth and Mars without mentioning what exactly Mars would have to offer Earth. I think the entire feasibility of Mars colonization rests on Mars having something that Earth does not have, and at this point, I have a great deal of trouble seeing what that might be, except cheap land, which doesn't seem to me to make up for the transportation and development costs that would go into it. Maybe a tourist industry, but I don't think you could build anything bigger than a small city on the basis of the tourist industry. Preceding unsigned comment added by 66.57.230.223 (talk) 18:24, 6 July 2008 (UTC) <\/p>\n I agree with the above. The moon advocates have a myriad of ways to provide services\/products to earth in a fiscal timetable, and value for value trades. However, this section on mars economics focuses mainly on earth providing economic benefits to mars and not an even exchange of value for value.Moonus111 (talk) 20:38, 1 October 2010 (UTC) <\/p>\n VIABILITY OF MARTIAN TRADE: <\/p>\n We know Mars has water enriched with deuterium (5 times more so than Earth). which is a viable export for cash. Strategic metals worth $10,000 \/ kg or more (gold and more expensive metals) can be shipped to Earth for a profit. Also, if there are asteroid bases, it is FAR cheaper to supply them from Mars than from Earth. Robert Zubrin suggested a triangle trade. High tech parts from Earth to Mars. Fuel, light industry supplies and food from Mars to the Asteroids. Asteroids send strategic metals back to Earth. <\/p>\n It is also easier for Mars to send stuff to Luna than it is to go from Earth to Luna. So if we get an industry collecting Helium 3 from the Moon, a similar triangle trade can be set up between the Earth, Mars and the Moon. <\/p>\n It won't be profitable to go to Mars to get Platinum (for example). It would be cheaper to re-open marginal mines on Earth. But the platinum on Mars won't have been picked over for hundreds of years - it will be right on the surface. If there are Martian colonists, they will be able to easily collect iridium, deuterium, rubidium, palladium, gallium, gold, etc, since there will be vulcanism and water created deposits right on the surface. These could be sold for a profit to get high tech, low mass supplies from Earth. <\/p>\n Mars has all of the elements needed for rocket fuel, plastics, industrial metals, computer chips and food. It also has a ~24 hour day night cycle which allows growing food economically. Coupled with Mars' greatest resource (a shallow gravity well) it can supply needed materials to bases in the inner and outer solars system more cheaply than Earth can. <\/p>\n For example: On page 230 of \"the case for Mars\" Robert Zubrin shows that a mission to Ceres requires 50 times less mass to be launched from Mars rather than Earth. (If the mission requires 1,000 tonnes of supplies it can be done with two launches from Mars or 107 launches from Earth.) This assumes that no propellent has to be hauled to Ceres. If we have to bring return fuel as well, then the Earth based mission becomes even more hopeless. Even if space launches from Mars are 10 times more expensive than Earth, it would still be much more profitable to send supplies from Mars. <\/p>\n Luna has severe disadvantages for a self sustaining colony. It lacks 24 hour day night cycle which is a huge problem if you have to grow plants there. (Plants require a really tremendous amount of energy to grow with artificial light.) Its lack of atmosphere means that plants will die from solar flares unless you have thick glass walls which will crack from the day \/ night heat stress. It lacks ores since the moon is made up of junk rock (see page 220 ibid for why ores are rare on Luna but likely common on Mars). Elements like H, C, N, P, K & S are all rare or very rare on Luna and must be imported from else where. There is plenty of oxygen and silicon but they are tightly bound to the rock and require a huge amount of energy and hydrogen and carbon to extract. <\/p>\n For references to what I've said above (and far more details), see \"The Case for Mars\" and \"Opening Space\" by Robert Zubrin. 65.110.28.47 (talk) 14:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)Warm regards, Rick. <\/p>\n WHY WAS COMMENTS ON ROCKET SLEDS \/ ROTATING SKY HOOKS DELETED? Space elevators are far more difficult to build than a rocket sled \/ sky ramp and or a rotating sky hook. If you are looking for cheap ways for a martian colony to make getting into space both methods are far more practical than a space elevator. Further, a sky ramp can put things into low Mars orbit, which a space elevator can't do, unless you haul rocket fuel up and launch from part way up the the elevator. I suggest that a rocket sled or Mag Lev style sky ramp located on Pavonis Mons is so many more times more practical than a space elevator (especially for a small colony struggling for capital) that the space elevator reference should be considered to be removed as a remote fantasy. I did not site sources in this article, but provided links to Wiki pages where there ARE references. 65.110.28.47 (talk) 14:40, 27 May 2011 (UTC)Regards, Rick <\/p>\n While interesting, I'd not stress this too much until 1) the results are duplicated independently, and 2) a longer time period is tested. 34 days is hardly long enough to ensure the survival of earth-life in Martian conditions. Cumulative radiation affects, for example, could prove disastrous over the course of months\/years. Additionally, one good solar flare would probably destroy any life exposed to it in the same environment that this lab used, which due to its lack of a magnetosphere, Mars would be greatly affected by (locally.) I don't have a paper to cite, but discussions with some profs at the local university were not very positive on the long-term success of such tests. Note that hard questions were not asked\/answered in the news articles cited, either. HammerFilmFan (talk) 12:20, 17 June 2012 (UTC) <\/p>\n On the 10th of November 2011 R.Schuster called for a citation for the statement: \"It is not known if this is enough to prevent the health problems associated with Weightlessness.\" However it is well known that no experiments were done in which human beings were subjected to fractional g accelerations for weeks or more at a time. The experimental evidence is from free fall in orbit. There does not need to be much documentation to show that we do not know something. So it seems we could just drop the citation nee In a number of edits on the 19th of July, Robertinventor among other things removed the sentences: \"It's impossible for any manned mission to Mars to keep to the requirements of the [[COSPAR]] (Committee on Space Research) guidelines for planetary protection. NASA currently follows COSPAR guidelines.\" He replaced these with a second link to [[Manned_mission_to_Mars#Critiques]] and his comments about introducing Earth organisms to Mars affecting Mars' biologically pristine condition. I have added the comment about NASA following COSPAR guidelines of planetary protection to the [[Manned_mission_to_Mars#Critiques]]. However, this is better addressed directly in the [[Colonization of Mars]] article because it is a direct concern of colonization. The time of a colonization mission cannot be until nations supporting launches to orbit consider that the research question of life developing independently on Mars or not has been sufficiently addressed. Technologies necessary to the colonization of Mars have not been sufficiently developed to have a one-way mission to Mars yet, so we are not waiting just for the COSPAR requirements to expire; but it is a definite road block. There are some advocates of colonization that want colonization started in their lifetimes, as do the backers of Mars One. So this is an item of interest to them. For a neutral point of view, we should not be promoting Mars colonization or minimizing or ignoring the problems. We should present significant facts that are published. - Fartherred (talk) 17:53, 24 July 2012 (UTC) <\/p>\n The article fails to point out how easy it is to colonize mars. It has wind, a steady stream of wind will blow on mars as a faint wistle effect. Mars is a dead planet. It can easily be colonized and solar power is not an issue. Ever here of electro-magentic generators? Its called free energy. They would be quite sufficient.--Asfd777 (talk) 14:49, 15 September 2012 (UTC) <\/p>\n People can get the idea of domes for Mars colonies by looking at many old science fiction magazine covers, but a transparent dome is impractical for Mars. Temperatures down to -143 degrees Celsius just overwhelm the limited heating available from a dome greenhouse. It is more practical for a greenhouse to be a buried cylinder with a portion of the curved roof made of glass and steel exposed to sunlight from mirrors that concentrate it as much as is needed to maintain operating temperature, and the skylight covered by insulation at night. I cannot give a reliable source for this but it is rather obvious to someone who knows a little physics. I would like to see a reliable source for the statement that domes are useful for trapping heat for greenhouses on Mars so that if it comes from a graduate student I can urge that they flunk out and if it comes from a professor I can urge that his research funds be cut back. - Fartherred (talk) 21:23, 14 September 2012 (UTC) <\/p>\n There has been the direct observation of many of the elements necessary for life and this could be supported by citation. However some of the elements necessary for life are necessary only in trace amounts and have not been directly measured yet. We have from the theory of the solar system forming from a cloud of gas and dust that Earth and Mars formed from planetesimals that formed from dust in neighboring regions of the cloud. Therefore the elemental composition of Earth and Mars should have been similar to start with and only limited differences in environment caused changes in composition over geological ages. That Mars is expected to have all of the elements necessary for life can be arrived at by synthesis from sources that I have found, but maybe someone can find the synthesis published. Then it could be included in the article. - Fartherred (talk) 10:14, 6 March 2013 (UTC) <\/p>\n The result of the proposal was no consensus. --BDD (talk) 17:51, 22 March 2013 (UTC) (non-admin closure) <\/p>\n Colonization of Mars Settlement of Mars Reflects modern terminology in the space advocate community without the distracting cultural baggage accompanying the term 'colonization' Relisted. BDD (talk) 16:33, 15 March 2013 (UTC) Ericmachmer (talk) 15:56, 6 March 2013 (UTC) <\/p>\n Comment I think consensus was quite clear, it was to not move. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 01:55, 24 March 2013 (UTC) <\/p>\n Settlement of Mars , Mars settlement , Mars settlement should all redirect here. -- 65.92.180.137 (talk) 02:08, 7 March 2013 (UTC) <\/p>\n Why is this useful? It seems to me that any worries about colonization should be addressed in the relevant sections up page. A lot of the info is literally duplicated from above. Also, it contains unsourced SYNTH from Robert Walker. Already have deleted some of the obvious duplication of info and unsourced opinions. The telerobotics paragraph is irrelevant so that was deleted as well. I have half a mind to delete the whole section. Warren Platts (talk) 17:14, 27 June 2013 (UTC) <\/p>\n This article now has an Advocacy section but no balancing Concerns section. <\/p>\n I kept a copy of the original Concerns section in my user space here: User:Robertinventor\/Colonization_of_Mars_-_concerns <\/p>\n I expected this to happen as the author said he is nauseated by all the concerns sections on Project Mars and is on a cleanup mission, also to remove all content written by myself on contamination issues. I did not write this now deleted section, just contributed some material to it. Robert Walker (talk) 14:12, 14 July 2013 (UTC) <\/p>\n Please be aware that a Request for Arbitration has been submitted to address the long-standing user conduct issues that prevent the resolution of content disputes. The RFAR is at: http:\/\/en.wikipedia.org\/wiki\/Wikipedia:Arbitration\/Requests\/Case#Mars<\/a> Robert McClenon (talk) 23:04, 14 July 2013 (UTC) <\/p>\n Can we include a more realistic-looking image (like CGI or something like that) as the lead one? The current one looks a little like it's from a children's magazine... --Againme (talk) 19:56, 16 October 2013 (UTC) <\/p>\n ___________<\/p>\n Why not just stage something in Arizona, to convey the illusion that there are already people on Mars? It seems that this \"childish\" picture is sufficient to mislead the uninformed that Mars is already colonized. WikiEditor2563 (talk) 18:42, 5 November 2013 (UTC) <\/p>\n This is in response to a personal email I received from wikieditor Grayfell, who asked that I discuss this here. I need instruction from him or anyone so I can email him personally, I find communicating this way to be overly complicated and incoherent First, I'm writing the final pages of a non-fiction book, which includes several chapters on the colonization of Mars, exoplanets, etc, so I'm somewhat of an expert on the subject, regarding the real potential of a colony on Mars. <\/p>\n Now, the Colonization of Mars is a particularly unique subject, in particular regarding its inclusion in an encyclopedia, because there isnt actually a colony on Mars! And such a thing is certainly not inevitable. EVERYTHING about the colonization of Mars is opinion and highly speculative. The case can easily be made that nothing about this wiki page is encyclopedic! and that this web page is nothing but a bullhorn for the Mars advocates which certainly seems to be the case when some of the edits Ive made are undone before Ive even logged off! I mean, why would anyone be so vigilant about (of all things) the colonization of Mars? <\/p>\n Your sense of how things can be edited is too strict. Even your sens First, why do you insist on using the word hospitable in describing Mars? That is entirely propagandistic. In no sense of the word, relatively or absolutely, is Mars hospitable. That might have been a matter of speculation to people in the stone ages, who gazed up in wonder but who couldnt have known any better; to Galileo; or even to early 20th century manbut NOW? given all that we know, in all its degrees of precision? <\/p>\n The sources that you are protecting belie the facts, and have no place in this wiki page. Anyone can write a science article these days and theres no reason their opinion is more relevant than mine. Even science articles are biased and often have a case to promote, and this is especially true for articles about Mars and the exploration of space. Furthermore, there are no sources that say that Mars has been colonized (regardless of unmanned research - which is truly amazing and gives me goose bumps), so maybe the entire Colonization of Mars page should be removed. <\/p>\n For the intro paragraph for this webpage, you need something for a general audience, not bogged down in misleading data. The fact is, a colony on Mars is science-fiction, and there are HUGE obstacles that prevent this from ever happening. this should be conveyed somewhere in the wiki page, preferably at the top, rather than cater to the dreamers and fantasists in some form of agenda. <\/p>\n For example, its FAR better to say that circumstances on Mars in fact would be deadly to all life as we know it (except for perhaps some extremophilic microorganisms) THAN deadly to most life because that implies that there are some forms of life on Mars, which is an OUTRAGEOUS implication, and propagandistic. Things that can be grown in simulated conditions on Earth do NOT change this simple fact! Mars is absolutely NOT hospitable to life and it is propagandistic to suggest that it does or might. Its not encyclopedic to suggest that there MIGHT be life on Mars when after the last 50 years of reconnaissance and actual soil and air analysisNO LIFE HAS BEEN FOUND ON MARS. Its very irrational at this point in the research - given all that we know, and we know a lot, and to a great deal of precision that there might be life on Mars. Thats a serious hang-up that is not supported by science, only by science-fiction fans and fantasists. Science doesnt HOPE or DREAM. Science simply collects facts.<\/p>\n The discovery of life on another planet would be the biggest breakthrough OF ALL TIME. That milestone has not been reached, so to imply that life may exist on Mars because of some dumb simulation here on Earth, or the unrestrained enthusiasm for such, does NOT belong in an encyclopedia. Maybe in Bizarre Fantasy Weekly, but not an encyclopedia.<\/p>\n This wiki page should not be used as a voice for dreamers, fantasists, or space tourism promoters. Now, I should be free to say THIS in the introductory paragraph maybe now you can appreciate how much restraint Ive been exercising. <\/p>\n The intro para to this wiki page should say, or convey, this specific point, because its realistic, not bogged down with misleading data, doesnt promote an agenda, and is entirely, as you say, encyclopedic:<\/p>\n It is absolutely true that This does not preclude the possibility that man might one day step foot on Mars and scout around, but whether or not we ever get to Mars seems less a matter of scientific progress, than the balance of power between sane and crazy which is properly referenced by National Geographic but which you reject because YOU HAVE AN AGENDA TO PROMOTE, which is in complete violation of the Wiki terms of service. <\/p>\n Its not scientific or encyclopedic to HOPE for something, just to state the facts or what can be reasonably surmised where scientific proof of something may be impossible, which seems to be the case, to a large degree, in this arena. <\/p>\n Given what we know, it makes more sense, at this point, to surmise that man will NOT colonize Mars, even though of course theres nothing to stop him from trying. This opinion should be conveyed, somehow, in the wiki page for this topic. <\/p>\n Bearing in mind that if someone wants to learn about Mars they are better served by the wiki page for Mars, because as a planet there is, of course, much to be said. WikiEditor2563 (talk) 20:03, 5 November 2013 (UTC) <\/p>\n As I indicated above, there are really no facts regarding a colonization of Mars, only opinions - much of which is wild speculation - so the idea of \"reliable sources\" regarding this is somewhat meaningless - since no one's been to Mars! One could challenge anyone who claims to be an expert on this subject. For that reason I don't understand why this webpage is so bulky! There seems to be nothing on the plus side for Mars! So where does the optimism come from? <\/p>\n Even for reliable sources, some things are still a matter of subjective opinion, or involve tremendous amounts of speculation, particularly about a colony on Mars. Such opinions are very biased, it's nave to deny this. This occurs, for example, when a \"specialist\" says something will happen in 20 years - which gets them off the hook, and implies \"let the next generation do it while we still collect a paycheck.\" Engineers are not magicians, they can't turn lead into gold. There's an incentive to push things ahead 20 years and not a more realistic 50 - or 100. 20 years seems more within reach, so project funding is maintained. Imagine if they said 50 years - funding would stop! When a specialist at NASA says \"something can be done\" its because if he said \"it can't be done\" he and the rest of his pals would lose their jobs! So this website CAN'T be a bullhorn for NASA or the Mars advocates. AND IN THIS ARENA, MANY THINGS MUST BE SURMISED, and this Wikipedia page includes a lot of surmising and speculating. Who do you think has their fingers crossed the hardest? NASA. When we read their articles we need to take everything they say with a few grains of salt, and be skeptical of their optimism, because the idea of a colony on Mars IS outrageous, for many reasons (and hence the book I'm writing). For starters, heavy payloads can't land gently on Mars - but that's just a distraction, that's not even one of the REAL obstacles. Maybe these reasons are just more intuitive to me than you, based on years of reading and my own point of view, for which I have 2 science degrees to support, but you have a point of view too, it's hard for ANYONE to be completely objective, we're all rooting for one side or another. <\/p>\n Also, there are a lot of \"opinions\" on Wikipedia, everything isn't sourced. Everything I've contributed to Wikipedia is objective, restrained, suitable for a general audience, and free of promotion. Even the part about \"balance between sane and crazy\" but I knew that would be deleted, even though some science articles are describing some things in this arena as just that. The content I've repeatedly posted to introduce this Wikipedia page is both historically correct, succinct, insightful, and captures the spirit of the concept without going overboard. <\/p>\n _____________________ I only <\/p>\n What's interesting is that you haven't substantiated any of your disagreements with me, just condescending threats and warnings. <\/p>\n As I just said to another editor, <\/p>\n So saying that something is \"sourced\" is, in the end, somewhat meaningless. Which is why I put a higher priority on relevance and readability than the source material. It goes without saying tha And again, regarding the \"warring,\" it takes two to tango. WikiEditor2563 (talk) 19:37, 13 November 2013 (UTC) __________________________ <\/p>\n WikiEditor2563, why are you removing sourced, relevant text and wikilinks? [2] --NeilN talk to me 18:30, 13 November 2013 (UTC) _______________________<\/p>\n Note: this editor has now been indefinitely blocked. andy (talk) 22:56, 13 November 2013 (UTC) <\/p>\n I have no particular expertise in the area but as an ever-curious reader here is what struck me about the article: <\/p>\n My two cents anyways. --NeilN talk to me 00:27, 14 November 2013 (UTC) <\/p>\n As far as I can see the article now has no mention of the requirements for planetary protection of Mars. Particularly, increasing evidence of possible habitable regions on present day Mars surface for microbes. This is a recent news story in Nature about the warm seasonal flows now found in equatorial regions: Water seems to flow freely on Mars - Any areas of water could be off-limits to all but the cleanest spacecraft. <\/p>\n Current guidelines for Planetary protection require us to keep Mars free of Earth life so that we can study it in its pristine state. This is an international requirement under the Outer Space Treaty which all space faring countries and countries with space ambitions except N. Korea have signed and nearly all other countries as well. <\/p>\n There is much published on planetary protection issues for rovers on Mars, as of course is an ongoing thing - there is not so much published on planetary protection for future human missions to Mars, although the issues are of course far greater for humans. <\/p>\n This is one article Human Missions to Mars a Challenge for Planetary Protection:Gernot Groemer <\/p>\n There are also general statements in some of the COSPAR documents but no detailed discussion or technical details. <\/p>\n I think the general assumption is that the humans would be sent to Mars only after the current exploration phase is already completed, at a point when requirements for protection can be relaxed somewhat, but there is no set criterion for the end of the exploration phase (which I personally think must surely last at least several more decades, probably longer, before we have a reasonable understanding of Mars by way of ground truth). <\/p>\n On the idea that perhaps it might be a major issue for human missions to address, there is this 2012 space.com article, with remarks from Cassie Conley planetary protection officer. Manned Mars Missions Could Threaten Red Planet Life - which of course is a bit out of date not mentioning the newer 2013 resuults. <\/p>\n Suggestion: to say that <\/p>\n Robert Walker (talk) 14:00, 5 January 2014 (UTC) <\/p>\n Hello everybody! I'm interested in reading about the feasability of a martian space elevator, such as mentionned by the end of the Tranportation section of this article. I already found an articles about the Space Elevators on Earth and the Moon. Now I need data about the martian one. Can anybody find them and add them to the article? Thanks. 80.82.235.62 (talk) 15:28, 4 April 2015 (UTC) A Martian lost on Earth;) <\/p>\n In the section, Economics, there is a link to Economics of extraterrestrial resource extraction which at first sounds pertinent to colonization of Mars, but when one follows the link it leads by redirect to the asteroid mining article which is only indirectly related to Mars colonization. This link is particularly distracting because although it is attached to the words \"economic problem\" it does not elaborate the economic problem of the Colonization of Mars. - Fartherred (talk) 04:48, 14 April 2015 (UTC) <\/p>\n Magnetosphere does nothing to UV or gamma rays, only to charged particles like beta and alpha rays. Now the sentence is misleading, but magnetosphere is good to mention in context of other radiation. I just don't have clue what is the effect size..? 91.159.81.20 (talk) 01:58, 3 May 2015 (UTC) <\/p>\n <\/p>\n See more here: Cost of a Manned Mission?[edit] Is there any reliable information about the cost of a manned mission to mars? I think it would be useful to include in the article. Continue reading
\nllion years (because the sun is warming) is silly. Let's focus on the next two hundred to 200,000,000 years and let someone else worry about the time after that. <\/p>\n
\nded template on the basis of common knowledge. We should do that or get rid of the statement. - Fartherred (talk) 02:18, 12 July 2012 (UTC) <\/p>\n
\ne of what constitutes an encyclopedic tone is subjective and about which you dont have the last word. You and a few others are way too quick to simply undo others edits, and is arrogant. <\/p>\n
\nt ALL of my edits are informed through the research I've been doing the last 15 months - and which is ongoing. <\/p>\n
\nTalk:Colonization of Mars - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia<\/a><\/p>\n","protected":false},"excerpt":{"rendered":"