Living on mars.

[DigDog]

there will be no real space exploration before orbital elevators. do your research.

 

[Retro Rob]

Thinking we are going to somehow rid ourselves of our faults and humanity is also another fools errand. Odds are we would go extinct before that happened. So yes, we will live on other planets and still have social problems there too.

Wonderful, but I dind't say we need to "rid ourselves of our faults" -- I specifically said we need to learn to "work together".

That's not at all saying that we need to be perfect first.

 

[Hayabusa Rider]

I am sure by the time space tourism has hit peak then maybe as an old man I;ll be tearing tickets for people who want to see a movie in a theater on mars.

By then fuel will be a trivial thing as more advancements have been made.

If it does not happen then people will laugh at the idea of the MARS FAD.

But maybe with Robots we do not need to go.

I would be all for a manned presence on Mars, but for scientific research purposes. There are things which might be discovered in a completely alien environment. "Fuel being a trivial thing" is more faith than fiction. The universe does not run on optimism. IF it were to happen that some of the NASA research on novel propulsion works out then it will certainly facilitate by a huge margin getting around. IF we are able to create practical von Neumann machines which can build complicated infrastructure then that would also be a huge milestone. At this point those technologies are all pipe dreams built with Unobtanium.

As far as wholesale terraforming so one could walk about on the surface, this is fundamentally impossible. Why? Gravity. Now if there were some mechanism which could be sunk to the core of Mars that could generate earth equivalent gravity were developed then we would have a way to keep an atmosphere of sufficient density which would be possible.

Expect to build Ringworld first.

 

[moonbogg]

I'd expect normal living conditions on mars in about 2 or 3 thousand years. Like cities and stuff. Naw, probably sooner. Maybe no more than 1,000 years.

 

[inachu]

I would be all for a manned presence on Mars, but for scientific research purposes. There are things which might be discovered in a completely alien environment. "Fuel being a trivial thing" is more faith than fiction. The universe does not run on optimism. IF it were to happen that some of the NASA research on novel propulsion works out then it will certainly facilitate by a huge margin getting around. IF we are able to create practical von Neumann machines which can build complicated infrastructure then that would also be a huge milestone. At this point those technologies are all pipe dreams built with Unobtanium.

As far as wholesale terraforming so one could walk about on the surface, this is fundamentally impossible. Why? Gravity. Now if there were some mechanism which could be sunk to the core of Mars that could generate earth equivalent gravity were developed then we would have a way to keep an atmosphere of sufficient density which would be possible.

Expect to build Ringworld first.

You are totally correct! I suspect a ring world would be more feasible.


I am sure though with your assumption only scientists would be going would be true at first but would need other people to go as well as maintenance crews and sure a small economy would grow from it being the black market in outer space to get what people need at any price.

This will breed the new era of space pirates. Then police in outer space.

So many little things like the above will make the space industry explode larger than anything on earth.

 

[SMOGZINN]

This will breed the new era of space pirates. Then police in outer space.

Who do you suspect is going to spend a billion+ dollars to steal a few thousands of dollars worth of supplies?

 

[doubledeluxe]

You are totally correct! I suspect a ring world would be more feasible.

A dyson sphere? That's a long way off.

 

[doubledeluxe]

Who do you suspect is going to spend a billion+ dollars to steal a few thousands of dollars worth of supplies?

That's not why I want to be a pirate. I want to wear the hat and have cool catch phrases as I commandeer imperial transports! The profit is secondary.

 

[DrPizza]

That's not the point of colonizing other planets. Antarctica is a good testing grounds but we've already had permanent research stations there for over 30 years.

What IS the point of colonizing other planets? And, I don't mean just building a base - but actually colonizing them - having children, raising children, etc., in extremely inhospitable environments.

Not with the space shuttle.

You're describing a vehicle that was designed for low earth orbit and comparing it to a vehicle whose purpose would be intersolar travel.

You missed the point of my reply - the point was to show that it's ridiculous to think that we will be sending massive numbers of people off this planet as a solution to over-population. Note that I explained what you said - low earth orbit. If you want a vehicle to travel beyond low earth orbit, you need even bigger rockets. In short, you're not launching 700 million people into space, regardless of the size of the capsule you cram them into.

The point is - we will NOT be solving the population problem on Earth by transporting people to other planets, regardless of how hospitable those planets are, with any technology or materials currently on Earth. To do so will require entirely new physics, or new materials that currently don't exist (space elevators). But, even then, using this as a solution for excessive population would be like building a machine the size of the large hadron collider to pull a sliver, when a pair of tweezers would suffice. Population: education & birth control.

 

[doubledeluxe]

Fair enough. However...

There is a rather huge difference between Antarctica, where we have been for 30 years, and space, the moon, or Mars. There are no resources that we can gain from Antarctica either due to the treaties and way we have divided up the continent. On top of that some of the ice is several km thick. However it's point two that is more important.

I once took a class for fun a long time ago about theoretical space travel and ways to get people off the planet and to distant stars. Was interesting.

You are thinking in the traditional sense with respect to the rocket equation and fossil fuels. There are theoretical advancements though that would make this moot. You could build a space elevator and get a lot of people off the planet. Solar sails to get them to mars. Constant 1G acceleration. Who knows what will be possible with advances in materials science, engineering, etc in 50, 100, or 200 years. I don't look at science and think that many things are impossible. The world that you and I were born into is not even remotely the same today. In 10 years we'll have 3D printers in every home. In 20 maybe we'll have materials capable of the stresses of a space elevator.

It was once ridiculous to fly in a hot air balloon. Today, a bit over 200 years later, we have people living on a space station.

The real question is would we want to evacuate that many people? What's the point of bringing all these people into such a hostile environment? Could we have the resources available to take care of them all? Seems a bit silly to bring people into space to save them when they are useless up there. The social structures would have to be in place and there would have to be something for 7 billion or 700 million people to do. If we want to save humanity through space exploration that doesn't necessarily include all humans let alone 10% of them.

 

[SMOGZINN]

There are no resources that we can gain from Antarctica either due to the treaties and way we have divided up the continent. On top of that some of the ice is several km thick. However it's point two that is more important.

Despite all of that getting a steady supply of useful resources out of Antarctica would be an order of a magnitude easier than getting a single rock back from Mars.

 

[doubledeluxe]

Despite all of that getting a steady supply of useful resources out of Antarctica would be an order of a magnitude easier than getting a single rock back from Mars.

There are a few companies working on space mining. An asteroid could be worth $50 billion dollars or more so companies will try to make it cost effective.

 

[inachu]

There are a few companies working on space mining. An asteroid could be worth $50 billion dollars or more so companies will try to make it cost effective.

Woah! Just imagine if they find a type that has gold in it or some other rare metal. Or imagine they find one that is a diamond or composed of many diamonds!

 

[doubledeluxe]

It's going to be Nickel and Titanium and some water.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

What IS the point of colonizing other planets? And, I don't mean just building a base - but actually colonizing them - having children, raising children, etc., in extremely inhospitable environments.


You missed the point of my reply - the point was to show that it's ridiculous to think that we will be sending massive numbers of people off this planet as a solution to over-population. Note that I explained what you said - low earth orbit. If you want a vehicle to travel beyond low earth orbit, you need even bigger rockets. In short, you're not launching 700 million people into space, regardless of the size of the capsule you cram them into.

The point is - we will NOT be solving the population problem on Earth by transporting people to other planets, regardless of how hospitable those planets are, with any technology or materials currently on Earth. To do so will require entirely new physics, or new materials that currently don't exist (space elevators). But, even then, using this as a solution for excessive population would be like building a machine the size of the large hadron collider to pull a sliver, when a pair of tweezers would suffice. Population: education & birth control.

Colonization has NEVER been about population control regardless of the political message of the time. The ethical issues are also a non issue because self selection renders them moot (unless we create another Botany Bay). In previous centuries, colonization was every bit as dangerous as colonizing other planets today. The reasons for exploration and colonization remain the same ie, the desire to test the limits, seek out and explore and, a hope for a better life built by your own hands.

 

[doubledeluxe]

...and find land and resources

 

[DrPizza]

There are a few companies working on space mining. An asteroid could be worth $50 billion dollars or more so companies will try to make it cost effective.

And, cost effectiveness means robotic missions. Manned missions are an order of magnitude more expensive.

 

[IndyColtsFan]

I am sure a reclamation process would have been made.
Imagine an industry of NASA employees operating some of these bots to train them for certain skill by way of macro programming then it can learn the rest on its own.

Using a joystick on earth to unscrew/weld new parts.

You do realize that at its closest, Mars is roughly 8 light minutes away, right? At its farthest, it is roughly 24 light minutes away. Now, double each of those numbers for a guy on earth trying to use a joystick to control something on Mars and receiving feedback. It is not practical.

 

[DrPizza]

You do realize that at its closest, Mars is roughly 8 light minutes away, right? At its farthest, it is roughly 24 light minutes away. Now, double each of those numbers for a guy on earth trying to use a joystick to control something on Mars and receiving feedback. It is not practical.

Seemed to work fine for the Mars rovers.

 

[BUTCH1]

You do realize that at its closest, Mars is roughly 8 light minutes away, right? At its farthest, it is roughly 24 light minutes away. Now, double each of those numbers for a guy on earth trying to use a joystick to control something on Mars and receiving feedback. It is not practical.

Correct, real-time control would be very difficult. Moreover, until NASA or someone else comes up with a propulsion system that cut's down the travel time sending people to Mars is incredibly risky, just look at the track record of failed probe missions, the success rate is dismal. First one has to provide enough air, water, nutrition for a 16-18 month long endeavor, then you have to design systems that are extremely robust with multiple redundancies in case something fails, if a part breaks en route a launch with the replacement would take many months to arrive. Then you have the issue of landing, the last probe we sent was the size of a Civic and it took some very, very sophisticated engineering to get it to the surface, it did work but with a human aboard the chance for a malfunction and the resulting tragic death would be a horrific blow to NASA. Now we have another huge issue to deal with, the return trip. Leaving the surface of Mars means a launch vehicle that can achieve escape velocity which is roughly 1/2 the size of a rocket that's needed to leave Earth, how can this much vehicle, propellant, support systems be safely landed on Mars for the trip back?, astronauts would face a tall task indeed constructing their own rocket since the only remotely possible solution would to be to land the parts piecemeal and assemble it on Mars's surface and they would only get one shot, if something goes wrong, dead astronauts again. Then another ugly issue arises, even if every piece of hardware worked perfectly the human body struggles to stay fit without gravity. Simply put, we are evolved to live in gravity, going almost 2 years without it would leave one's body in terrible condition, yea, you can install exercise equipment to somewhat mitigate these issues but overall time spent in space is detrimental to the body not to mention the feeling of isolation as earth fades away from view en-route. Then you have a "personal hygiene" issue, since water would be extremely limited traditional showering would be close to impossible, body wipes are fine for a short duration but would you really want to work, eat, and sleep with people who have not had a bath or shower for 16 months?, talk about ripe!. NASA and any other governments, agencies, ect, should just forget about interplanetary travel until better technology arrives, (particularly propulsion) and continue to send out probes, and rovers which can achieve scientific goals without the worries (and colossal expense) of manned missions.

 

[DrPizza]

How would you grow crops with no water?

Edit: I guess there may be water under the ground. Super-irrigation needed. Robots.

Anything would be environmentally sealed. So, water isn't really an issue. Think of it like a terrarium - except that most of the light would be artificial light, since (I think) sunlight would be inadequate. As the light drops off with the square of distance; Mars is roughly 14/9 the distance of the Earth from the Sun, therefore would receive 81/196 of the light; or roughly 40% the light intensity.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

DrPizza, why are you against manned missions? Is it just a matter of the increased cost? Do you believe in the long term value of a space program? Space exploration and colonization takes commitment. It's easy to walk away from a project if it's just a few billion in equipment. It's not so easy when there's people involved.

 

[Greenman]

DrPizza, why are you against manned missions? Is it just a matter of the increased cost? Do you believe in the long term value of a space program? Space exploration and colonization takes commitment. It's easy to walk away from a project if it's just a few billion in equipment. It's not so easy when there's people involved.

I don't think anyone is really against manned missions, the issue is baggage. One person on a Mars mission is going to need tons of food, water, air, and a boat load of energy for basic "hotel" operations. One robot will need a tiny percentage of that load. The other side of the coin is that people are fragile, they can't take high G's, they can't take radiation, vacuum, high pressure, high heat or extreme cold. People also don't function well at the ragged edge of endurance. Robots have none of those defiances.

 

[MagnusTheBrewer]

I don't think anyone is really against manned missions, the issue is baggage. One person on a Mars mission is going to need tons of food, water, air, and a boat load of energy for basic "hotel" operations. One robot will need a tiny percentage of that load. The other side of the coin is that people are fragile, they can't take high G's, they can't take radiation, vacuum, high pressure, high heat or extreme cold. People also don't function well at the ragged edge of endurance. Robots have none of those defiances.

It shouldn't be one or the other, it should be both. Robots do some things very well as you've mentioned. However, they don't adapt well to new unforeseen situations, they can't generalize new operating parameters from those new/changing situations and, they can't 'experience' the new environment no matter how many sensors you load them down with. The indispensable part of human exploration is our ability to make conceptual leaps and apply them in real time.

 

[DrPizza]

DrPizza, why are you against manned missions? Is it just a matter of the increased cost? Do you believe in the long term value of a space program? Space exploration and colonization takes commitment. It's easy to walk away from a project if it's just a few billion in equipment. It's not so easy when there's people involved.

I very much believe in the long term value of a space program. I do not think that human exploration, at least not at present time or near future, adds any value whatsoever to the value of the space program.

" they don't adapt well to new unforeseen situations" And humans are even more vulnerable to unforeseen situations. If something bad happens and the robot cannot complete a mission - send up another robot that can address that problem. You can do this multiple times before it approaches the cost of a manned mission.

"changing situations" such as? Look at Apollo 13. That was unexpected and you're right - it shows how humans can survive. But, it was also incredibly lucky that they DID survive. Name one thing all of the Apollo missions accomplished that a robot could not do. (Besides win the space race.)