Human colony on Mars in 2023?

[Roger Ramjets]

Could there be a Moore's Law of robotic space exploration, or is that wishful thinking?

Considering that we haven't even managed to land a man on the Moon since 1972, I would say Moore's Law doesn't apply to space exploration.

Remember, asteroid mining doesn't involve people. We want to transition space exploration from a linear technology into an exponential one,

Unlike computer chips, whatever technology is required to mine asteroids is likely to also result in an exponential consumption of resources. Compared to any type of terrestrial mining, the overall cost of mining asteroids is just not worth the benefit. But perhaps the technology does increase exponentially and we develop artificial intelligence and self-replicating machines - then it's just a matter of time before those machines have mined out all the asteroid belts, and start eying up planets...

So first there needs to be a reduction in the cost of getting off the Earth's surface, and then there needs to be the ability to "live off the land" by using the resources in space.

No, what we need to do is make better use of what we have back here on Earth, rather just stuffing the planet and then moving on to 'greener' pastures. This is not the 15th century, and we are not sailing ships to the New World. The time has come for us to give up romantic dreams of 'colonizing space' and get serious about living within our means.

Over the next thousand years Humanity will have enormous challenges to face, for which we will (hopefully) develop exponentially advanced technologies. What we don't need is a bunch of space cowboys diverting us from those challenges.

 

[GlennB]

No, what we need to do is make better use of what we have back here on Earth, rather just stuffing the planet and then moving on to 'greener' pastures. This is not the 15th century, and we are not sailing ships to the New World. The time has come for us to give up romantic dreams of 'colonizing space' and get serious about living within our means.

Amen. A.totally.men.

I'd use that for a sig if only it were shorter

 

[Justin39640]

Considering that we haven't even managed to land a man on the Moon since 1972, I would say Moore's Law doesn't apply to space exploration.

Unlike computer chips, whatever technology is required to mine asteroids is likely to also result in an exponential consumption of resources. Compared to any type of terrestrial mining, the overall cost of mining asteroids is just not worth the benefit. But perhaps the technology does increase exponentially and we develop artificial intelligence and self-replicating machines - then it's just a matter of time before those machines have mined out all the asteroid belts, and start eying up planets...

No, what we need to do is make better use of what we have back here on Earth, rather just stuffing the planet and then moving on to 'greener' pastures. This is not the 15th century, and we are not sailing ships to the New World. The time has come for us to give up romantic dreams of 'colonizing space' and get serious about living within our means.

Over the next thousand years Humanity will have enormous challenges to face, for which we will (hopefully) develop exponentially advanced technologies. What we don't need is a bunch of space cowboys diverting us from those challenges.

I'm saddened by the death of the human spirit of exploration demonstrated in this thread, on a forum supported by Neil DeGrasse Tyson.

He's brought up before (can't find the video at the moment) something about humans having the ability to save themselves from global catastrophe (by being able to leave) and choose to do nothing about it.

 

[LSSBB]

I'm saddened by the death of the human spirit of exploration demonstrated in this thread, on a forum supported by Neil DeGrasse Tyson.

He's brought up before (can't find the video at the moment) something about humans having the ability to save themselves from global catastrophe (by being able to leave) and choose to do nothing about it.

I agree. In fact the very cure to the problems found on Earth may be found in exploration elsewhere. It would at least get us off this tiny target for space hazards.

I just don't understand the hostility. Space exploration is not taking money away from starving Somalians by any stretch. Much of the current effort is even swinging toward private funding. If someone doesn't like where the money is going, raise your own billions and go solve the world's problems.

 

[Justin39640]

I agree. In fact the very cure to the problems found on Earth may be found in exploration elsewhere. It would at least get us off this tiny target for space hazards.

I just don't understand the hostility. Space exploration is not taking money away from starving Somalians by any stretch. Much of the current effort is even swinging toward private funding. If someone doesn't like where the money is going, raise your own billions and go solve the world's problems.

I don't understand the hostility either. I guess that's the same problem with getting the money for projects when politics are involved. And it's not like the billions of dollars needed for the manufacturing of spacecraft and equipment wouldn't be pumped back into our struggling economy.

I like to think of manned space exploration/colonization as the next logical step in the evolution of humans as a species. Unfortunately it seems most people are content with their iPhone 5 being the high water mark of technological achievement. (shrugs)

 

[Justin39640]

Here's NDT testifying before the Senate Science Committee on why reinvigorating the space industry would be beneficial not harmful.



That includes manned Mars missions.

 

[Belz...]

Also what contamination will happen on Mars.

Who cares ? Certainly not any Martians.

 

[Morchella]

This will never happen. It is just another scam to part a fool and his money. Remember the Raelians? I love science and space exploration but... finding a habitable planet is fantasy. Those that think we are ever leaving this planet are watching too much Star Trek. We are going extinct right here. Even if the closest star at 3 light years has a habitable planet then it will take many generations to get there if Einstein was correct. Where all the skeptics when the topic of interstellar travel comes up? The concept of leaving this planet after we waste it is an unfortunate meme that needs a more skeptical eye. It's like religion to some people.

 

[Justin39640]

This will never happen. It is just another scam to part a fool and his money. Remember the Raelians? I love science and space exploration but... finding a habitable planet is fantasy. Those that think we are ever leaving this planet are watching too much Star Trek. We are going extinct right here. Even if the closest star at 3 light years has a habitable planet then it will take many generations to get there if Einstein was correct. Where all the skeptics when the topic of interstellar travel comes up? The concept of leaving this planet after we waste it is an unfortunate meme that needs a more skeptical eye. It's like religion to some people.

Well then... someone call up CERN and tell em to pack it up and flush it all down the toilet! You understand that the work they're doing over there on certain predictions, if proven correct, would mean that interstellar travel would indeed be possible (wormholes). Why do they spend the billions on useless research (in your apparent opinion)? It's a conglomeration of multinational geek scamsters?

Logistics aside, you could terraform Mars with existing technology today. Take about 100 years before humans could ditch pressure suits and only have to rely on oxygen masks. The only thing from sending humans there today is the lack of investment in developing and proving technologies that are reliable enough to trust them for such a mission.

I think the religious viewpoint is more of the "you're stuck, you're **********, you're all gonna die here, so don't bother trying" side of the argument. Maybe today you're correct but can you honestly tell me in the next 1000 years, technology might have a chance of proving that mindset wrong? You can't.

 

[GlennB]

Logistics aside, you could terraform Mars with existing technology today.

I'd be interested in reading about it, but the "Logistics aside..." comment worries me. If that allows the presence of thousands of massive nuke plants on Mars and/or the import of billions of tons of material from the moons of Jupiter then it still looks like SF.

But even then Mars will still have no magnetosphere, and that problem won't go away.

 

[H'ethetheth]

Given the history of plans for manned Mars missions, I'll believe it when I see it.

 

[H'ethetheth]

Amen. A.totally.men.

I'd use that for a sig if only it were shorter

Take out the first sentence, and it still makes sense. Just saying.

 

[bobwtfomg]

But even then Mars will still have no magnetosphere, and that problem won't go away.

Exactly, as far as I understand it the current scientific consensus is no magnetosphere = no protection from the solar wind = no atmosphere. So even if you could terraform a new atmosphere it'd just get blown off into space.

 

[Mark6]

I'd be interested in reading about it, but the "Logistics aside..." comment worries me. If that allows the presence of thousands of massive nuke plants on Mars and/or the import of billions of tons of material from the moons of Jupiter then it still looks like SF.

And that's pretty much why I do not believe that "creating a backup for human race" is a viable reason for space colonization. No colonization was ever done for that reason. British did not set up colonies in America in order to have a backup Anglosphere in case something really bad happens to England (even though the colonies more or less paid off in that manner around 1940 or so ). They set up colonies with much more immediate goals in mind. Every successful colony in history had some concrete return on the investment within a decade, or at most a generation. That return on the investment then allowed the initial colony to expand and to provide new returns. Set intermediate goals, build up on them, then set next set of goals. Ultimately that's how Americas and Australia grew.

I highlighted the word "successful" for a reason. Many, many colonies in history failed to provide a return within reasonable time. They died. Always. Either literally -- every colonist fell to starvation, disease and hostile natives, as mother country stopped sending supplies, -- or functionally: surviving colonists went back on the last ship.

That's the problem with proponents such as LSSBB. They want space colonization, but cannot come up with any short-term justification for it (short-term being anything up to 50 years or so), so they propose "backup for human race". Which, unless plausible intermediate goals can be found, amounts to nothing less than by far the biggest project in human history. I agree that thinking in terms of centuries would be a good thing. I do not see it happen without (at least) tremendous extension of human lifespans. Seriously, how would you go about changing how people think on global scale? I mean, people cannot even agree about global warming!

 

[Mark6]

Well then... someone call up CERN and tell em to pack it up and flush it all down the toilet! You understand that the work they're doing over there on certain predictions, if proven correct, would mean that interstellar travel would indeed be possible (wormholes). Why do they spend the billions on useless research (in your apparent opinion)? It's a conglomeration of multinational geek scamsters?

I am fairly sure "find a way to travel faster than light" is not CERN's stated goal. Sure, they would love to find it, but that's not how basic research works.

 

[Mark6]

I agree. In fact the very cure to the problems found on Earth may be found in exploration elsewhere. It would at least get us off this tiny target for space hazards.

I just don't understand the hostility.

"At least get us off..." -- you make it sound so simple!

That's why the hostility -- or what you perceive as hostility. Actually it is frustration with wild-eyed optimism of people who have no clue about complexity of what they are proposing. Such as, creating artificially everything that Earth biosphere provides for free.

Space exploration is not taking money away from starving Somalians by any stretch. Much of the current effort is even swinging toward private funding. If someone doesn't like where the money is going, raise your own billions and go solve the world's problems.

Of course space exploration is not taking money away from starving Somalians. It also, at current levels of funding, will never lead to colonization -- as in, raising children in space. To exploitation of space resources, sure. To some kind of defense system for deflecting asteroids, possibly. But such things do not require much human participation -- or more accurately, require as little human participation as possible. By far the hardest part of any manned space project is keeping the absurdly fragile bags of protoplasm alive. If you want to do something specific in space -- bring back solar power, move an asteroid, -- you want to minimize the involvement of these fragile bags. If "humans in space" is your goal... all I can say is, good luck getting your fundings. You'll need it.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

Logistics aside, you could terraform Mars with existing technology today. Take about 100 years before humans could ditch pressure suits and only have to rely on oxygen masks. The only thing from sending humans there today is the lack of investment in developing and proving technologies that are reliable enough to trust them for such a mission.

We may be able to, but I don't think we should, just yet. There's enough evidence to suggest that Mars had a wet, habitable environment for a long enough period of time that life may well have formed. Life may yet be around over there, but even if it isn't the fossils alone would be too valuable to risk damage from an altered atmosphere. Let's put comfortably-pressurized boots on the ground first, find them, or lack thereof, and then make the call. We can afford to wait a couple of centuries. There's no rush.

That's the problem with proponents such as LSSBB. They want space colonization, but cannot come up with any short-term justification for it (short-term being anything up to 50 years or so), so they propose "backup for human race". Which, unless plausible intermediate goals can be found,

Plausible intermediate goals:
1) Science. An argument can be made that robotic probes can explore just as well in theory, but in practice they really can't.
2) Tech development. Due to a lack of rotating orbital habitats, space life support is needlessly complicated, so there is essentially no research being put toward increasing habitat sustainability.
3) ISRU development. People keep talking about mining asteroids and such, without having a concrete plan for how these things are going to be processed. Well, now we have a testbed.
4) Medical science. Again due to a lack of rotating habitats, astronauts get cycled down every year or so to keep their bones from turning to jelly. Generations spent in long-term low gravity will undoubtedly have an effect on mammalian development, but we currently have no way to examine it.

And that's just a couple. I could keep going, if you want.

amounts to nothing less than by far the biggest project in human history.

Horse crap. Compare the projected costs of a colony on Mars (add a 300% budget overrun, for yucks) to that of the financial bailout, or the Iraq War. I'm not going to do the numbers for you, I want you to invest the time yourself.

I agree that thinking in terms of centuries would be a good thing. I do not see it happen without (at least) tremendous extension of human lifespans. Seriously, how would you go about changing how people think on global scale? I mean, people cannot even agree about global warming!

If you agree that thinking in terms of centuries would be a good thing, why not try it yourself? Here's how to change thinking on a global scale: one short-sighted naysayer at a time.

 

[Mark6]

Horse crap. Compare the projected costs of a colony on Mars (add a 300% budget overrun, for yucks) to that of the financial bailout, or the Iraq War. I'm not going to do the numbers for you, I want you to invest the time yourself.

Any such "projected" colony on Mars would not have a snowball's chance in hell to survive if Earth suddenly died. It would die within few years. By "the biggest project in human history" I meant what LSSBB and Justin39640 actually want -- a self-sufficient colony. They did not use these words, but what else can they mean by "It would at least get us off this tiny target for space hazards"?

 

[Mark6]

Plausible intermediate goals:
1) Science. An argument can be made that robotic probes can explore just as well in theory, but in practice they really can't.
2) Tech development. Due to a lack of rotating orbital habitats, space life support is needlessly complicated, so there is essentially no research being put toward increasing habitat sustainability.
3) ISRU development. People keep talking about mining asteroids and such, without having a concrete plan for how these things are going to be processed. Well, now we have a testbed.
4) Medical science. Again due to a lack of rotating habitats, astronauts get cycled down every year or so to keep their bones from turning to jelly. Generations spent in long-term low gravity will undoubtedly have an effect on mammalian development, but we currently have no way to examine it.

And that's just a couple. I could keep goin

You completely failed to understand what I meant by "intermediate goals". I mean goals which actually produce financial return. And the ones you listed:

1) So far the argument has won out. And it will continue winning out as long as robots get smaller, cheaper and smarter, while humans remain in Model 1.0. Yes, a live geologist on Mars can accomplish more than a rover. How many rovers can you send for the cost of one manned mission? Collectively they can accomplish more than that geologist.

2) Circular argument. Increasing habitat sustainability only pays for itself if there are habitats to pay for themselves.

3) True, but the fewer live humans are involved, the more cost-effective it is. Not a good basis for colonization.

4) Same as #2. Research on how to keep humans healthy in space only pays for itself if there is a reason to keep humans in space.

An "intermediate goals" has to be something like fur trading stations in Canada -- something valuable enough to make adding more people a resource production instead of a resource sink. None of your ideas qualify.

 

[GlennB]

Horse crap. Compare the projected costs of a colony on Mars (add a 300% budget overrun, for yucks) to that of the financial bailout, or the Iraq War. I'm not going to do the numbers for you, I want you to invest the time yourself.

A quick look suggests Iraq has cost ~$3T, with the very lowest commercial Mars mission running at about $6B. Call that 'very optimistic indeed' so make it $30B, say, including budget overruns. That's a 100-fold margin vs. Iraq which makes a Mars mission look cheap.

However, that $30B figure is for a vanilla 'visit', not the founding of even a short-term colony. if people are going to do serious work up there then the radiation-proof living quarters, supply of oxygen, water etc etc needs to be established before the first people even arrive. Given that current technology sets a payload limit of ~1 tonne (Curiosity landed that way because it was very close to the limit and was too heavy for a 'bounce' landing like other missions), then we're looking at a lot of launches and have to consider the attrition rate - Mars landings sometimes fail.

But how will all this equipment be assembled? The only answer, in the absence of people, is robots. Robots with a lot more power than a Rover, as kit will have to be collected from many landing sites to a central point for assembly. We don't possess any such robots and they'll have to be developed.

Water and oxygen will require production and storage facilities which means more kit and large arrays of solar panels and/or mini nuke power plants. And let's not forget food.

I could easily go on, but won't. It would cost far, far more than Iraq. And Iraq and the bailouts were driven by events while a Mars colony wouldn't be (see below).

If you agree that thinking in terms of centuries would be a good thing, why not try it yourself? Here's how to change thinking on a global scale: one short-sighted naysayer at a time.

I don't consider myself short-sighted or a 'naysayer'; I believe I've thought it through and view the idea realistically.

A final thought - if surviving an extinction event, such as a massive asteroid impact, here on Earth is an objective, how long would it take to equip deep road and rail tunnels, all over the world, for the purpose? I'd guess it could be done in a few years - maybe less - at a fraction of 1% of the cost of a Mars colony, and the (far greater number of) survivors would emerge right here on Earth, not living on the hell-hole that is Mars with no way of returning. Elton John's 'Rocket Man' hit the nail on the head