Let's Not Go To Mars 684
HughPickens.com writes: Ed Regis write in the NYT that today we an witnessing an outburst of enthusiasm over the literally outlandish notion that in the relatively near future, some of us are going to be living, working, thriving and dying on Mars. But unfortunately Mars mania reflects an excessively optimistic view of what it actually takes to travel to and live on Mars, papering over many of the harsh realities and bitter truths that underlie the dream. "First, there is the tedious business of getting there. Using current technology and conventional chemical rockets, a trip to Mars would be a grueling, eight- to nine-month-long nightmare for the crew," writes Regis. "Tears, sweat, urine and perhaps even solid waste will be recycled, your personal space is reduced to the size of an SUV., and you and your crewmates are floating around sideways, upside down and at other nauseating angles." According to Regis every source of interpersonal conflict, and emotional and psychological stress that we experience in ordinary, day-to-day life on Earth will be magnified exponentially by restriction to a tiny, hermetically sealed, pressure-cooker capsule hurtling through deep space and to top it off, despite these constraints, the crew must operate within an exceptionally slim margin of error with continuous threats of equipment failures, computer malfunctions, power interruptions and software glitches.
But getting there is the easy part says Regis. "Mars is a dead, cold, barren planet on which no living thing is known to have evolved, and which harbors no breathable air or oxygen, no liquid water and no sources of food, nor conditions favorable for producing any. For these and other reasons it would be accurate to call Mars a veritable hell for living things, were it not for the fact that the planet's average surface temperature is minus 81 degrees Fahrenheit." These are only a few of the many serious challenges that must be overcome before anyone can put human beings on Mars and expect them to live for more than five minutes says Regis. "The notion that we can start colonizing Mars within the next 10 years or so is an overoptimistic, delusory idea that falls just short of being a joke."
But getting there is the easy part says Regis. "Mars is a dead, cold, barren planet on which no living thing is known to have evolved, and which harbors no breathable air or oxygen, no liquid water and no sources of food, nor conditions favorable for producing any. For these and other reasons it would be accurate to call Mars a veritable hell for living things, were it not for the fact that the planet's average surface temperature is minus 81 degrees Fahrenheit." These are only a few of the many serious challenges that must be overcome before anyone can put human beings on Mars and expect them to live for more than five minutes says Regis. "The notion that we can start colonizing Mars within the next 10 years or so is an overoptimistic, delusory idea that falls just short of being a joke."
Hmm (Score:4, Funny)
We choose to go to mars not because it's easy, but because .... Wait... it's not easy?
Oh, well lets give up then
Re:Hmm (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:Hmm (Score:5, Interesting)
Even that is wrong. Given enough resources and a reduced concern for the health and safety of the astronauts, we could probably reach Mars about as fast as we could build the ship and launch it towards the red planet. We've had the technology to launch - and land - men there since the '70s. But both the cost and risk were considered too extravagant, especially considering the lack of significant reward for all that effort. While a ten-year deadline might be a bit tight considering the US would have to build up the industry to support such an effort, if it really wanted to it could very likely get a man to Mars and back within that schedule. It would just cost A LOT more money than is prudent and we'd probably see a number of astronauts either splattered across the Martian surface or stranded down their until their life-support systems gave out (landings and lift-offs are hard).
Otherwise, most of Regis' other arguments are bunk. It would be a long, cramped, unpleasant journey? People have suffered far worse; the early antarctic explorers, or sailors from the Age of Sail. Hell, we have refugees cramming themselves for weeks at a time into tiny boxes that would seem luxuriously expansive to any astronaut in hopes of reaching a better life. And the lack of gravity only HELPS here; yes, it is initially disorienting to see people hanging at "nauseating angles" but it opens up a lot of wasted space, making what appears to be a very cramped habitat much more spacious because all that wasted space on the walls and ceilings can be put to use.
Nonetheless, I do ultimately agree with Regis' premise that Mars should not be the goal simply because Mars is a dead-end. I mean, what are you going to do once you get there that can't be done here on Earth? Dreams of terraforming aside, in the short term (read: next few centuries at least) man will only be able to live on Mars if encapsulated in climate-controlled metal-tubes. And if people are going to be stuck in metal tubes anyway, it might as well be tubes that can MOVE places instead of being anchored to rock at the bottom of a steep gravity well. L5 colonies, asteroid mining, and ultimately island-hopping our way through the Solar System, the Oort cloud and beyond are far more entertaining and profitable enterprises than being tethered to another planet just because its there. Forget Mars; it's a luxury that we can look into after we get the basics down. In the mean time, if you really want to explore off-world colonization options, use the Moon; it's closer.
Even this is wrong (Score:5, Interesting)
There's not a snowball's chance in hell of a long-endurance spacecraft using the existing state-of-the-art in life-support and logistical technology to endure for 9 months in space. To build such a thing is still decades off, and this is just one of the more trivial details of things that people fail to understand. No doubt its FEASIBLE, but that degree of engineering doesn't happen without a LOT of buildup. Look at the plan diagrams that have been published, they include several generations of technology in this area before we're really ready.
Beyond that no existing technology will land men on Mars with the ability to take off again. A lunar-lander style 'direct descent' would require a huge amount of fuel because the ascent engine would be pretty large, on top of the lander itself, and thus the descent engine would be prohibitively large. This means we have to design some sort of aerobreaking/parachute/glider/rocket hybrid approach. Those which have been used in the past are only good for a up to a couple 1000 kg, not enough for a manned landing by a long shot. Again, its FEASIBLE to do this, but we are at least a decade away from such a thing, maybe more.
So, maybe we mostly agree at some level, but I think your 10 years, even for an insanely useless project, is highly optimistic.
As for your ideas on reasons to go or not go, I heartily concur. Mars is a useless waste of a place to go except perhaps as a science destination, and in that case you can send 100 unmanned rovers per human. While a rover is far less than a human 100 sophisticated rovers with advanced manipulators, semi-autonomy, and sample return capability are unlikely to be outperformed by one miserable man who can only move a few km from his landing point and can't stay more than a couple weeks.
If you want to 'colonize Mars' it would make FAR more sense to colonize Antarctica, or the deep ocean, both of which are infinitely more hospitable and closer.
Re:Even this is wrong (Score:5, Interesting)
There's not a snowball's chance in hell of a long-endurance spacecraft using the existing state-of-the-art in life-support and logistical technology to endure for 9 months in space.
I know, right? If only the U.S. [wikipedia.org] (or the Russians [wikipedia.org] perhaps) had the foresight to start trying to build technology that could sustain human life [wikipedia.org] for an extended period [wikipedia.org] in space. Since [wikipedia.org] nobody [wikipedia.org] did [wikipedia.org] any [wikipedia.org] such [wikipedia.org] thing [wikipedia.org], I suppose it is impossible [wikipedia.org]. That kind of thing would have had to start over 40 years ago.
Re: (Score:3)
Mars is MORE hostile than the Moon. There are plenty of places on the Moon to get 24/7 solar power. For that matter an SPS could do it and for Lunar purposes wouldn't be an impractical idea at all. In any case near the poles you could put up panels that would swivel and get sun all month long. Mars has chemistry, which is not good, who knows what all the nice perchlorates and other fun stuff will do? Not to mention the nasty super fine airborne dust.
The fact is that sending mass to the Moon is 100x cheaper
Re: (Score:3)
So what he is saying is that Mars is what Hell would be like if it actually froze over...
It's not just about going to Mars (Score:5, Insightful)
It's about going everywhere else. The tech developed going to Mars will undoubtedly be useful when going other places. You crawl before you walk, you walk before you run.
Re:It's not just about going to Mars (Score:5, Interesting)
It's about going everywhere else. The tech developed going to Mars will undoubtedly be useful when going other places. You crawl before you walk, you walk before you run.
Then go to the moon first.... Colonize it where the technology can be perfected in a place where help is perhaps a week away and not at least a year away like Mars would be a lot of the time. IMHO we will kill less people this way and still get much of the same technologies developed we will need to keep expanding our reach. Take smaller steps. It's not as glamorous because we've been there before, but it gets us into technology development.
Re:It's not just about going to Mars (Score:4, Funny)
There is an alien base on the far side, that is used to monitor Earth. The leaders of Earth know this, and have been warned to stay away.
Mars also has an alien base, but being so far from Earth, they're lonely and wouldn't mind some company.
First Things First - a Real Ship. (Score:3)
Good Point. But there is more.
We need to loft a multi-megawatt reactor to power those engines, provide ample power for life support, and generate a magnetic shield for protection from various forms of radiation.
It would need it to be big enough to support a centrifugal section for living and working quarters. And that would have to be big enough to provide space for medical facilities, a galley, hydroponics, recycling, etc.
In short, we'd need to build an actual, for real Ship, not just some tin can that is
Re: (Score:3, Interesting)
Actually, a good pre-requisite would seem to be a space elevator, which would be a better investment now that we are getting materials strong enough to build a tether in principle. Then we could relatively cheaply get a spaceship up there.
Re: (Score:3)
It exists, assuming we don't demand a single ground launch for said spacecraft or the trajectory skirts the outer edges of the belts rather than pass through the middle (what the Apollo missions did). Without strong magnetic fields you aren't going to catch radiation in heavy concentrations that would be dangerous.
On second thought ... (Score:5, Funny)
... let's not go to Mars. It is a silly place.
Start with the moon (Score:5, Insightful)
It's the logical stepping stone always has been.
Easier to get to.
Can actually get aid to in case of emergency.
Will have a much quicker return on investment.
Once we have it colonized, it will be much easier to spread into the solar system from there.
Mars Mania is just rather strange.
Re: (Score:2)
Re:Start with the moon (Score:5, Informative)
The Moon is not better than Mars. It has a much harsher thermal environment due to its complete lack of atmosphere. Mars is very cold - but its pretty consistent. The Moon has wild variations in temperature depending on if you are in sunlight or shade - and the night lasts 2 weeks. The first lunar night it had to endure pretty much killed the Chinese moon rover. Non of the Apollo missions spent a night.
The dust on the Moon is entirely un-weathered, and is likely to present a hazard due to being incredible abrasive. Mars dust is probably easier to deal with
The martian atmosphere provides CO2 - that is 2 useful elements you can get just by sucking it through a pump. Any materials you want to use on the Moon must be mined from rocks, and that is harder.
Finally, the Moon is too close. One goal of an offworld colony is a break from lots of the crap here on Earth. A place where you could conceivably still get a connection to Earth internet (albeit with seconds of lag) makes this harder.
So there IS a chance! (Score:2)
"The notion that we can start colonizing Mars within the next 10 years or so is an overoptimistic, delusory idea that falls just short of being a joke."
If it's not a joke, if it falls short of being a joke, then he's admitting there is a possibility! Cool! I'll start packing!
Re: (Score:2)
Be sure to bring lots of oxygen.
Off-Earth habitation (Score:5, Insightful)
Genuine question...
Given the difficulties of getting to Mars, the fact that Mars is barely any more suited to habitation than space and the fact that trips to and from Mars need to deal with the planet's gravity well... why do we assume that the first off-Earth permanent habitation would necessarily need to be on Mars, or indeed on any other planet?
If we want a permanent off-world habitat, would it not be more worthwhile to devote energy to exploring the possibility of permanently-habitable, (near) self-sustaining space stations? These could be closer to Earth , would presumably have rather better access to solar power and journeys to and from Earth would only need to deal with a single planetary gravity well. They would have their own challenges; dealing with radiation and with the effects of zero-gravity on the human body in the longer term, but those don't instinctively feel as difficult as some of the problems highlighted in TFA. Other challenges, such as those around hydroponics and recycling, might not be that different from those associated with a settlement on Mars.
Or is there a good reason why this is in fact more difficult than Mars-colonisation which I've just overlooked?
Re: (Score:3)
Well, it has a little bit more than space, it has gravity, which seems to be important for various life process (of both man and plants).
Re: (Score:2)
Well, it has a little bit more than space, it has gravity, which seems to be important for various life process (of both man and plants).
Yes, but there's a well-known solution of a rotating space station [wikipedia.org] to produce artificial gravity, an idea that has been around for more than a century.
The main problem is just funding the thing. But the amount of funds, resources, and amount of stuff needed to be launched into space to create a rotating space station is about as feasible as establishing a semi-permanent settlement on Mars. But travel to and from a rotating space station would be a LOT easier.
Re: (Score:2)
I agree it would be cheaper. Unless you need a lot of territory, and you dont plan on travelling or returning to earth of course.
Re:Off-Earth habitation (Score:4, Insightful)
Re: (Score:3)
Because we've been to the Moon, so investors aren't as willing to throw money at that. People want to be a part of going somewhere different.
Translation: Stupid people exist. They also happen to have a lot of money, and apparently get bored easily.
Re: (Score:3)
Because (at least some) gravity is a really useful thing to have.
It's much easier to get full earth gravity on a space station than on Mars. It's not even possible on Mars as far as I know.
Because Mars is one of few places with a reasonable day/night cycle.
Also trivial to simulate on a space station.
Because even a thin atmosphere beats hard vacuum by dampening the thermal swings during day/night cycle.
Nobody's suggesting a space station with the corridors exposed to vacuum.
Because Mars has a lot of useful materials available. Water, for example, which is kinda "must have" for any permanent settlement.
It's far easier to get to these things in space.
Moon really really sucks due to the whole "lunar night is really really really really cold and long" bit. Okay, you can work around that by building a base at the pole where there are peaks that are in permanent sunlight (and crater bottoms that are permanently dark).
He wasn't suggesting building moon bases.
The only major downside to Mars is "it is kinda far away" and it really isn't a huge deal if you do a major colonization effort.
Low gravity you can't increase, almost nonexistent atmosphere by earth standards, where it's warm enough to walk outside there is no water, where there's water it's lethally cold, an
indeed, let's not (Score:5, Insightful)
Technically, humanity probably could colonize Mars already. It would be expensive and unpleasant, but lots of things that have advanced humanity were expensive and unpleasant at first.
A bigger reason not to colonize Mars is that there are far better things to do in space. Mars is a deep gravity well, and there's little evidence that there is anything in it we want. The asteroid belt, on the other hand, is full of useful stuff in convenient orbits.
Going to Mars is a bad idea (Score:4, Insightful)
Going to Mars is a bad idea for a whole range of reasons.
First, aside from proving that we can do it, what is the point? Going to the moon is *way* easier, we do have the technology to establish a base there right now, it is immeasurably cheaper to finance - yet no one is suggesting seriously that we open a colony on the moon. And why would we? With Mars - it is the same thing. At first, going to the moon was totally exciting, electrifying the entire world. After the second or third landing, people stopped caring. Been there, done that. If we go to Mars, the first trip would make headlines, so may the second, but then attention will fade. People will care about a colony on Mars as much as they care about the international space station.
The biggest problem with the long-term prospects of the endeavour is that there are no good economic reasons for it. But without economic reasons, this is not sustainable.
And about the argument that it will be great for technological breakthroughs. I suggest to think again. The biggest tech breakthrough we will have in the next generation is the development of machines that can act ever more independently. From that perspective, going to Mars could be a great boost - if we decide not to send humans but restrict ourselves to probes. Then we will have the biggest technological benefits.
In the meantime - if you want to live on Mars, why don't you apply to become a researcher on the south pole. Compared to Mars, life there will be paradise. And there is plenty of interesting research to be done there as well. Of course - no one will give a flying f*** about it - but this is about science and progress for humanity - not personal vanity, right?
Re:Going to Mars is a bad idea (Score:4, Interesting)
What really cemented my belief that going to Mars is impossible with current technology is this article [nasa.gov]. The biggest thing to me is just how much supplies you need to sustain yourself for the trip. 3 million pounds worth of supplies. That's 60 shuttle launches worth of supplies. Sure there's rockets that can lift more than the shuttle could, but even with those heavy lifter rockets, you're probably looking at around 30 launches just to get the gear into space. Then there's the problem of being stuck in a tin can for 9-12 months, and still being in good enough shape to do something useful once you get there.
If you want to come back, the minimum stay is 3-4 months while you wait for the planets to line up again. And there is no turn around option like with the Apollo missions. Once you are on your way, there's no way to bail out and come back quickly in the event of an emergency.
c'mon, let's go see Mars (Score:2)
Why not the moon first? (Score:2)
Send these guys (Score:2)
These men actually tried some of the privations of a trip to Mars, on a budget:
http://channel.nationalgeograp... [nationalgeographic.com]
The "Rocket City Rednecks" are a wonderful mix of genuine scientific research on a budget, and the sort of project some of us tried on long weekends when we were much younger.
Been saying this for years (Score:5, Insightful)
To everyone with the "We HAVE to leave earth or we're doomed!" argument:
With the exception of a planet-destroying asteroid (similar to the one that formed the moon), there is no conceivable disaster that will leave the earth less inhabitable by humans than any other body within our conceivable reach. The nearest planet or moon where humans could live in an even remotely self-sustainable way is so far away that even if we could travel near the speed of light, it would still be well out of our reach.
Re: (Score:2)
That's a rather short [youtube.com]-sighted [imdb.com] perspective on things.
Re: (Score:3)
If every nuclear weapon in existence were detonated all at once in a war-to-end-all-wars, the earth would still be much more inhabitable than any other body in our solar system.
If even a few bunkers of isolated survivors on earth lived through a super-plague of epic biblical proportions, they would still be far more likely to survive than any colonies of humans in space (who would all be dead very shortly after the supply drops stopped coming from earth).
Keeping all our eggs in this basket is our only optio
Re: (Score:3)
And I just don't see the point in spending a lot of money just to ensure that "the human race" survives. Whether it's a few hundred people surviving a nuclear winter, or a few hundred people surviving the perpetual Martian winter, none of those people are likely to be me or anybody I care about. "The Human Race" is just too broad an abstraction to get me to emotionally engage with it.
I'd much rather see that kind of money spent on improving the lives of actual living human beings right now. I'm not opposed
Re: (Score:3)
I'm with you. Who cares if mankind continues if 99.999% are wiped out by something? I'm sure the people left will want to survive, but if myself and the Earth are wiped out I don't really care that there are 200 people on Mars to carry on our DNA.
Going to Mars.... (Score:5, Insightful)
Is not complicated. Nor is it difficult bringing several orders magnitude greater "stuff" than the article contemplates.
But this will not happen without nuclear propulsion. With Project Orion powered space craft, we could send 100,000 ton vessels to Mars, single stage, capable of landing, with a trip time of weeks, not months.
This is the difference between trying to explore the new world, from Europe, with 5 people, paddles and a canoe; or a fleet of diesel powered amphibious vessels holding thousands of tons of cargo, and hundreds/thousands of expeditionary personnel.
Exploring Mars (or pretending to settle it) with chemical rockets is really just playing with toys, the science equivalent of masturbation, and we really shouldn't bother with the cost. If mankind wants to expand beyond the earth, it will take nuclear propulsion.
So basically (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Or maybe Mars is not yet a stepping stone, more a cool challenge? It wouldn't be so much for the science. The science can be done in unmanned missions.
There are people willing to go there even if they won't survive very long.
I think the idea that we're trying to colonize the planet is a bit of a straw man. A first attempt at an outpost that will probably fail after a while, is there support for that? I think there is.
Re: (Score:2)
So basically, it would be exactly like the passage to the New World was, only a) without gravity, b) with far better entertainment and medical options, and c) you can actually phone home.
Except that when you got to the New World you could step off your ship - without simultaneously asphyxiating, freezing, getting fried by radiation and being covered in rather unpleasant dust - shoot a few buffalo for food and start planting your crops in the fertile soil. Even Antarctica or the top of Everest are pretty cosy compared to Mars. Plus, the great thing about sailing ships is that they didn't rely on your destination having fuel refineries to get back.
Trouble is, a lot of us grew up with the im
The World is Flat (Score:2)
Well, at least Ed Regis is in the esteemed company of people that believed that you would fall off the earth if you went too far east or west. I'm looking forward to toasting Ed Regis with the local moonshine from a beautiful view sitting above Candor Chasma Rim. Seriously, find reasons to do things instead of excuses for giving up.
Don't do something that is hard (Score:3)
This never stopped our predecessors and defined science and discovery in ways unimaginable. That's why you leave it to those individuals at the extreme.
Nicer than Venus (Score:2)
it would be accurate to call Mars a veritable hell for living things, were it not for the fact that the planet's average surface temperature is minus 81 degrees Fahrenheit
Hell, that would be Venus: [wikipedia.org]
The CO2-rich atmosphere, along with thick clouds of sulfur dioxide, generates the strongest greenhouse effect in the Solar System, creating surface temperatures of at least 735 K (462 C).
Gee, who knew? (Score:2)
Wow, getting to Mars will be tough! Who knew?
Might as well tell the guys spending a year on the iSS as a Mars mission study to come home now.
Documentary (Score:3)
No, Let's Go To Mars (Score:2)
Who cares? (Score:3)
""First, there is the tedious business of getting there. ...would be a grueling, eight- to nine-month-long nightmare for the crew,"
I guess your great grandparents came with a Concorde to the US and didn't have to endure a grueling sea voyage where thousands died, then the long voyage to the west on foot where thousands died as well from hunger, sickness and exhaustion.
Thank god at least here are no Mars-Indians. :-)
Author has no clue ... (Score:5, Insightful)
The author obviously has no clue about science.
o Who cares about the average temperature of the planet when a landing spot will be close to the euator?
o what is the longest stay in space, people already have done?
o why do inhabitants of the ISS not care if they hang "wierd in space"?
o did he once check the size of your personal space in a submarine?
o while Systems may fail, mankind has build enough complex systems that lasted for decades (hint: pioneer and viking space probes)
o while he is right that the atmosphere is not breathable, there is enough CO2 to produce all O2 we ever need there, and likely with water we have it even more easy to produce O2
I for my part would happily join a trip to mars, even one way under a few conditions.
Re: (Score:3)
he brings up alot of things that we have overcome (Score:2)
the thing I see is that we might aim for Mars but end up on the Moon first, people seem to think just because we didnt achieve the primary goal then a secondary goal is not a option, and doing\planning for something harsher will give a "easier" goal like settling on the moon a better chance
Basic question (really, VERY basic) (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
9 months of stress, noise and sleep disturbance (Score:5, Funny)
"move to" vs "go to" (Score:5, Insightful)
The New York Times article has the title "Let’s Not Move to Mars" and is basically a rant about how we won't be living on Mars anytime soon (if ever). Changing the title for the Slashdot article to "Let's Not Go To Mars" implies that the author is suggesting we don't even try to land a person on Mars which is not really the point of the original article.
I think we should try to have an unmanned mission return to earth from Mars before we attempt to have a manned mission go to Mars.
Watch this crazy man speak about this very problem (Score:5, Insightful)
We do them not because they are easy, but because they are hard [youtube.com]
We need to dare to dream. We need to do hard things. If not, then what the hell are we fighting for? What are we doing? Every society worth remembering, every great nation in history did things that were impossible. We can't stop doing that. We can't stop dreaming, or we will die. We will deserve to die.
Re:No one is asking YOU (Score:5, Insightful)
Something tells me Ed Regis isn't about to climb Everest either.
Re: (Score:2, Funny)
This really is a great analogy. Both are really hard. Everest, however, is within days journey of civilization, has a steady pipeline of supplies, has oxygen all on its own, and there are many smaller/easier mountains to practice on until we figure out what gear and techniques are needed to be successful.
So all we need is a continuum of planets between our orbit and that of Mars that are increasingly hostile and distant; that will allow us to work our way up to Mars. Hey, let's start with the Moon!
Re: (Score:2)
Everest, however, ...has oxygen all on its own
Excellent argument, except for that part.
Re: (Score:3)
And yet maybe we SHOULD terraform the moon. Shooting rockets off the moon would require less energy than shooting them off the earth.
Re: (Score:3)
Yes, I know. I said that. If you stand on the moon such that the sun is directly over your head, it won't be directly over your head again for 29 earth days. That spot will be in sunlight slow-roasted for 14-ish days (depending on the horizon) and then deep frozen for another 14-ish days. Nasty.
Re: (Score:3)
They're actually genetically changed to use less oxygen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/... [wikipedia.org]
"In May 1999 he spent a record 21 hours on the summit without supplementary oxygen, even sleeping there."
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Something tells me Ed Regis isn't about to climb Everest either.
And why should he, exactly?
I'm not being a troll here, nor am I trying to dissuade anyone from their mountain-climbing hobbies. I've enjoyed climbing on small scales myself, though mostly I prefer hiking (even on more difficult terrain).
Anyhow, I can see some idea of "human achievement" in having the first person summit Everest. On the other hand, this was achieved in the days before we had robots or planes or whatever to do the exploring for us.
But nowadays, you're talking about investing a huge am
Re:No one is asking YOU (Score:5, Insightful)
Everest has been done to death. It's just a premium selfie location for rich assholes now. Not a technically challenging climb either. You just trudge through the world's longest, most horrible amusement park lineup for your moment at the top.
Re:Worse than the space station? No. (Score:5, Informative)
We have been maintaining human life on the space station for years
The ISS is under the Van Allan Belts. It's also frequently resupplied from Earth.
with individual stays lasting longer than the trip time to Mars.
And they're experiencing all sorts of medical problems because of it.
And once there, water and soil could be extracted.
(Gotta love the passive voice. Always a favorite of PR firms and politicians.)
With what kind of (heavy) machinery would the water and soil be extracted? And what would power it? Don't say "solar power", because the Sun appears much smaller when viewed from Mars, and thus receives much less energy.
Re:Worse than the space station? No. (Score:4, Informative)
And once there, water and soil could be extracted.
(Gotta love the passive voice. Always a favorite of PR firms and politicians.
Gotta love the passive voice Nazis; if they don't have anything else to say, that's always a good cheap shot. No content whatsoever, but whatever.
We could extract water from the soil, because it is present in subsurface ice, as well as in the form of water of hydration.
With what kind of (heavy) machinery would the water and soil be extracted?
Shovels.
And what would power it? Don't say "solar power", because the Sun appears much smaller when viewed from Mars, and thus receives much less energy.
Solar or nuclear, take your pick. Each has advantages.
Incident sunlight is about 500 W/m^2, about half that at Earth's surface, although it depends on season and dust loading in the atmosphere. You don't seem to be aware of it, but we have been operating a solar-powered rover on Mars for well over ten years. We know solar energy works on Mars: we have done it, we are doing it.
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
It's not "fantasy" to have solar power powering much of our world. There's a huge amount of open space that can be used for solar panels; building rooftops come to mind, as do parking lots. There's quite a few people who power their homes with solar power exclusively, and make so much extra they can sell it back to the utility. Of course, storage (for nighttime or rainy days) is a problem, but if our utilities ran well and compensated solar users properly, this wouldn't be a problem, as the solar users c
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
(Gotta love the passive voice. Always a favorite of PR firms and politicians.)
And people who can't understand past the third grade level.
With what kind of (heavy) machinery would the water and soil be extracted? And what would power it? Don't say "solar power", because the Sun appears much smaller when viewed from Mars, and thus receives much less energy.
ahem.... There are solar powered doodads on Mars as we write this, happily motoring about, an doing research.
At least they could be doing research.
Re:Worse than the space station? No. (Score:5, Informative)
The people who reduce Mars resource extraction to simple "We'll simply do this, then that" statements have clearly never had to work building or maintaining mining, ore processing, and refining equipment on Earth, let alone on Mars ;) We've never done any sort of actual mining on other worlds (no, using a RAT or taking tiny dust samples is not "mining"), and most of the stuff one might consider even close to "refining" we've done in space has proved to be a maintenance nightmare. Seriously, how often has the ISS lost things like its oxygen generators, its urine reprocessor, etc? And all of these are quite toward the easy end of "refining" tasks. Heck, the oxygen generator literally just dumps its hydrogen overboard and they never attempt to tank the oxygen. I remember that one of the reasons that the oxygen generators were failing at one point was that the water they were feeding it was "slightly too acidic". I mean, seriously, and you want to use dug-up muddy Mars ice with who knows what in it as your feedstock? And that's when the system's not trying to kill you - they've had corrosive chemical leaks, near-fire situations, etc.
Everyone who says "We'll just dig up X for resource Y" as if it's just that simple needs a serious reality check. These systems can take decades to refine to the point where you can rely on them being dependable enough for the long periods of time involved in a Mars mission to have peoples' lives hinge upon them. And they're anything but "simple", even for the simplest tasks like water production and oxygen generation.
To reduce risk, reasonable mission profiles for Mars that involve in-situ actually call for a long "prep phase". In such a phase, one tries to produce everything robotically and then store it, with the idea of having everything present on-site and ready when people arrive. That way, if the system fails, or produces resources that for some reason or another are not usable, people don't die. But it also means long delays before you can launch people, even after you get the mission there.
One example is with MOXIE. They're considering including it on the Mars 2020 rover (although somewhat controversially - I wouldn't be too shocked if it got cut). It takes CO2 from the atmosphere and makes O2 and CO - both just released to the atmosphere, no attempt to store it. The idea being that the atmosphere should be a more consistent and reliable source of raw materials than mined water ice. If it works right and lasts, then the idea is to make a 100x bigger system with its own dedicated high power RTG (read: expensive), as well as tankage, compressors, etc and send that to Mars, leave it running for 5-10 years, and if it completes storing up enough O2, then use that for a human mission. So this would mean:
1) Hope that MOXIE doesn't get cut before launch ... competing with a wide range of other scientific proposals for mission money. Hope it gets approved.
2) Hope that Mars 2020 makes it into the 2020 launch window
3) Arrive at Mars after a long cruise phase. Hope that there's no accidents in launch, transit or on landing.
4) Spend enough time with MOXIE operating to prove that it actually works in a Mars environment (dust storms, radiation, temperature swings, etc). Hope it actually works.
5) Take proposals for the expensive oxygen generation mission
6) Hope that people are willing to go ahead and lock future manned missions into a particular site chosen that long in advance, before the mission hardware is even designed.
7) Spend years building the refinery-craft, hope for no cutbacks or cancellations.
8) Launch the refinery craft, hope for no accidents.
9) Wait through cruise phase (hope for no accidents) and landing phase (again, hope)
10) Hope that the new system actually works as desired for many years on end (which means keeping breakage-prone things like compressors running for long periods of time).
11) Hope that a manned Mars mission actually gets funding -
Re:Worse than the space station? No. (Score:5, Insightful)
Personally I think we should build an outpost on the Moon. It's a lot closer to Earth and it would actually be possible to build both lunar-escape vehicles and even to maintain a standby rocket ready to take a rescue mission to the Moon if an outpost had a horrible accident and still get there while people could be saved. The lack of atmosphere isn't the same as Mars, but the pressure on Mars is so low that it's probably good experience for long-term exposure of gaskets and seals to fine particulates without having significant air to help clean. It also has a practical side of being able to be used for Earth observations and even possibly as a telescope mount for space telescopes where humans could service them more easily than an orbital telescope.
There are lots of very difficult problems to solve, but we're pretty good at solving problems.
Re:Worse than the space station? No. (Score:4, Insightful)
What I want to see is a radio telescope
A telescope of any sort on the far side of the Moon would be a fantastic idea.
But if enough Astronauts haven't grown up yet then who am I to stop them?
I'll try and stop them from using my money.
Re:Worse than the space station? No. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure there is a huge psychological discrepancy between being in orbit around Earth in a space station equipped with an emergency escape capsule, and being out in the middle of space with little to no hope of rescue.
Re:Worse than the space station? No. (Score:5, Insightful)
I'm sure there is a huge psychological discrepancy between being in orbit around Earth in a space station equipped with an emergency escape capsule, and being out in the middle of space with little to no hope of rescue.
Kinda like the days of sailing ships. You were out on the ocean in a little wooden ship, and no one to save you. Safety culture has most people people brainwashed into accepting no risk. Which is why we have houses in gated communities that are protected by ADT Security, and with a handy safe room.
There is another whole world out there, more interesting and more exciting than getting a good return on your investments, and extracting every last possible second out of life. And safety culture is doing it's best to stamp that shit out. WIthout hurting anyone of course.
And Safety culture really really really hates the idea of going to Mars. It's a scary place. Someone might get hurt.
Re: (Score:3)
Relevant SMBC [smbc-comics.com]
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
"Yes, in an environment that can sustain life, heading to a place that might have something you want."
Early navigators didn't know that. Ridden by superstitions, doubts, inaccuracies. I've recently visited a -- they say -- size-accurate replica of Pedro Alvares Cabral's caravel. Official history say that he was the first to arrive in Brazil in 1500 A.D., a few years after Columbus's trip in 1492. It's about 100 ft in length (30 meters), and held about 150 men. Columbus's ship were about the same size. In th
Re: (Score:2)
We don't even have the practical technology to make our own deserts places people can live,
Well... Las Vegas
let alone the airless lifeless desert which is Mars. Talk to me about a cloud city on Venus though... that is a hot idea.
Thanks!
Re:No one is asking YOU (Score:5, Interesting)
A Venusian cloud city isn't as "romantic", as you never get to physically walk on the surface... but it is indeed easier (very easy entry, much better radiation protection, earthlike gravity, more frequent launch windows, much easier EVAs, no landing site restrictions, much more sunlight (and nearly doubled due to reflection from below), etc) as well as being more useful. Latency doesn't matter much when operating Mars probes remotely, but on Venus, when any atmosphere-diving surface explorer probe is going to have a very limited period of time at the surface before it overheats, command latency is critical; also, maintenance needs on your surface probes are probably higher, which also calls for humans. Plus, any good Venus exploring program would have power generation/recharging, cooling, and sample analysis done at altitude in a centralized aerial station rather than hauling down (and back up) a lot of sensitive equipment that you have to protect from the heat - which makes it easier to just declare that central station a manned laboratory. You can explore the whole planet rather than just the area immediately around your landing site. And lastly, we've explored Mars way better than we've explored Venus - there's far bigger outstanding scientific questions about Venus than about Mars.
It'd also be a lot more comfortable to live on Venus. Buoyancy = space. People will have a lot of room to move around in. Or grow plants or whatever else. And could potentially walk outside on the surface of the craft in as little as an oxygen mask and eye protection (the CO and SOx levels are too high for the eyes but might be tolerable to the skin). Some SOx-hardy plants might even be able to grow on the exterior of the craft if properly watered and nourished.
I daresay that Venus also has more potential to be profitable than Mars in the distant future. There's a lot of potential for precipitating out exotic compounds in the high pressure / high temperature environment, the Venera probes found some types of lava flows often associated with rare mineral deposits, and there's good evidence to suggest large carbonatite flows which are often associated with even rarer deposits.
Re:No one is asking YOU (Score:5, Interesting)
52,5km is Denver air pressures with ~37C/100F air temperatures, which seems a nice balance. Plus, it's a "dry heat" ;)
The SOx isn't actually as concentrated as most people picture, it's a diffuse mist... more like a bad smog. Yes, it's corrosive to some materials, but not to everything. Most plastics, for example, are indifferent to it. So are many metals (at practical Venusian concentrations, most metals are probably fine, even steels). And on the upside, you don't have the dust problems as found on Mars, have far less radiation exposure, and far more constant temperatures.
There are of course a couple disadvantages to being at altitude while exploring the surface. One of the most notable is that the winds are far faster at those altitudes than at the surface, so you'd have to play "catchup" with your surface-exploring probes. One way to do that is to have the probes float up even higher than the base on return from a surface trip, into even faster winds. There are also some concerns about turbulence and lightning, although we think these are confined to lower altitudes. Unfortunately, we've explored Venus so little that it's hard to make definitive statements. :P
Another common misconception is that there's "no water" on Venus. Actually, Venus's atmosphere has almost as much water vapor as Earth's atmosphere - it's just mixed in with a *lot* of other stuff, mainly CO2, which is why the percentage is so low. The percentage is however notably higher at "typical floating colony" altitudes than at near the surface. In addition to carbon, hydrogen, oxygen and sulfur in the atmosphere, at those levels Venus's atmosphere also contains a number of other useful chemicals - lots of nitrogen (as N2); moderately low amounts of argon, low amounts of helium and neon; very low amounts of chlorine (as HCl) and phosphorus (as H3PO4 - it's more commonly found lower); and trace amounts of hydrofluoric acid and what appears to be volcanic ash/dust (the Venera probes identified small amounts of probable iron and silica on detectors during descent). Thankfully there are notably different properties between the atmospheric constituents - for example, a chilling stage would first draw out a mixture of acids (containing the water and dusts), then the bulk CO2 would freeze out, leaving the N2 and noble gases. Further steps would depend on what the goal was. So if one wants to look at the long term view, there's a lot of potential to produce a wide range of plastics and plant macronutrients just from the atmosphere - although metals and many of the lesser plant nutrients would probably have to come from the surface (such as the tailings from the rocks being studied (nearer term) or mined (longer term)) unless one is highly effective at capturing ash/dust.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
Pointing out the clear reality of a situation isn't leftist. It's realist.
Re: (Score:2)
Leftists...
Since it's a metaphysical certitude that Elon Musk doesn't vote Republican or belong to the Tea Party, your comment pushes the bounds of stupidity.
Unless you're doing a Poe. In which case.... "Well played, sir!"
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2, Informative)
He's not saying we should never go. He's just giving a reality check: there are technological problems we need to overcome first, and at the rate we're progressing, we won't be there in the next 10 years. To shoot people toward Mars before those problems have been solved would be irresponsible.
Re:Why stop there? (Score:5, Insightful)
We have plenty of humans here on earth... some would say a growing concern of way too focking many.
We can spare a few heroic lives for the betterment of humankind, and indeed, for that of the overburdened Earth.
At some point, if we don't leave this planet, we will all die here. What if sorry ass humans are the Universe's best shot at an advanced life from?
Re: (Score:2)
Sure, if there's a reasonable chance of success, then by all means lo
Re:Why stop there? (Score:5, Insightful)
In retrospect the first exporters of the "new world" seemed to die pointless deaths too, but their exploration and their expanding of the known world was not pointless at all.
The same would be true of explorers to Mars. Trips there might be one way to start, but trips to the new world were essentially one way too in the beginning.
Re: (Score:3)
Overpopulation on earth will not be solved by colonizing Mars. You need to reduce Earth's population by a few billion to make a dent. Imagine the energy requirements to transport a billion or so people from Earth to Mars.
That ain't happening without Commonwealth Saga-esque wormholes. Which I think are a little unlikely.
I'm all for space exploration, but without new physics it's not going to solve the problems we have on Earth. We need to stop hoping to "get off this rock" and really focus on taking care of this rock. It's the only one we've got.
OP was not saying it would help reduce population, they were making the point that we have enough humans that a few could choose to go to Mars and we'd get on fine here. There are plenty of humans, we are not a scarce resource.
As to the argument to solve Earth's problems first, that's silly. There are over 7 billion humans on the planet, we can work on more that one thing at a time. And a few people leaving doesn't change the motivation or desire of those that are staying to take care of the environment.
Re:Yes, we should give up because it is hard.. (Score:4, Insightful)
There are other hard things we could consider doing, such as eliminating carbon emissions are establishing peace in the Middle East.
Arguably both much harder than a mere trip to Mars, but IMO much more valuable to the human race as well.
Re: (Score:3)
Oddly enough, the technology developed to go to Mars could conceivably assist with your first request of eliminating carbon emissions. I am sure the power and propulsion systems will be unique and require advances in that area. I am not sure why people forget all the technology and inventions that come from space exploration...much of which does make our daily lives better.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
There's a great West Wing episode which discusses why we should, but somehow I think that wouldn't gain me much here. Discussions of the nature of man, and the establishment of wonder being particularly squishy in hard science terms.
Instead I'd point out that all safety critical systems are engineered around the notion of redundancy. Shit happens, and when it does, things break down. When that unexpected thing happens to our Earth-bound ecology, what, exactly, is our safety strategy? Hide in a hole? Fo
Re: (Score:3)
Seeing as how there was food(*), water(**), oxygen, space to move around, gravity and protection from cosmic radiation on their voyages, your analogy is completely fucking bogus.
(*) I don't know how much they could fish on sea voyages.
(**) Not so much on sea voyages.
Re: (Score:3, Insightful)
I hate idiots who compare voyaging to the New World with voyaging into space.
Columbus had water, oxygen, sunlight, fishing, and air pressure on his journey. He reached a New World with soil that crops could be grown on, wild game that could be hunted and eaten, forests with trees that could be used to build shelters. It was hard work, but a self-sustaining (even resource producing) colony *could* be built in the New World. It wasn't a *completely* foreign or hostile land for human survival.
There is no other
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:3)
Re: (Score:2)
If a homeless guy walks into your office, rubs shit in his hair, proclaims himself a god, and asks you to follow him, would your line of reasoning be "Well, he COULD be crazy...but I had better follow him anyway, because I could just be being too pessimistic"?
The charge of pessimism and "lack of vision" are catch-all attacks you could use against anyone who dares questions anything, no matter how crazy. Yes, when THEY say that "X can't be done" they're sometimes wrong. But most of the time they're actually