Human colony on Mars in 2023?

[Justin39640]

So, apparently, you feel free to posit unlimited disasters that could simultaneously kill 99.99999999% of people on Earth (a planet with human-like temperatures over a huge range of altitudes and latitudes; liquid water; and lots of useful biomass, not to mention infrastructure.)

Apparently, you feel the situation on this planet today, will never ever be different? And, that wasn't my point. The point is that SPACE pessimists will always have the "lets fix problems down here, first" regardless of how many problems you fix. By their reasoning, there will never be enough resources and time to facilitate manned exploration of space on any scale.

But if a Mars pessimist posits that some concrete and pedestrian disasters that could simultaneously kill the dozen or hundred people in a fragile pressure vessel on a bare, dry, irradiated rock in space---that's what you want to dismiss with "humans' historic ability to adapt and survive"?

That would be a terrible loss. I would hope the ability to adapt and survive relies heavily on the advanced engineering and technology existing today and yet to be invented. Improvisation works best without a 4 to 20 minute com lag. space is dangerous. We all know that. The people who PUT THEMSELVES in harms way know and accept that. Adapt and survive in the technical sense is redundancy. You can isolate and change systems as problems arise. That would be adapting in short order. Not the organism, but its environment.

The first men and women to explore past LEO and the Moon will be the spearhead of humanity's overall evolution. Better to start now than later. "we have problems down here" isn't a real argument since wherever humans go, there will be problems to overcome and adapt to.

"ability to adapt" does not mean humans are invincible high-tech survivalists on Mars and braindead sitting ducks on Earth.

I never said either. Especially the invincible part. There's plenty of conditions right here on Earth that will kill a man. We don't die because we used the best tool in out kit to come up with a solution to each, our brain.

Again, I'm not blind to the immense costs and technological challenges that would be involved in a Mars mission of any kind.

The plan in the OP seems far fetched and optimistic at best to me. Not a scam but perhaps PR as some suspect. I came into this when people seemed pessimistic of manned exploration of space in general. That was the position I was arguing against, no so much defending the OP's plan. Sorry if that's OT or caused confusion. [/disclaimer] lol

 

[xtifr]

Still, why invest in that even when focusing on the more immediate problems here on earth can potentially help the step to the moon and beyond far more productively in the long run?

Why build a Large Hadron Collider when there are still people starving? Why develop better computer technology when we could be fighting to free people from tyranny and oppression? Why publish novels when there are still people who can't read?

Sorry, I don't buy the "we need to fix all our problems before we try anything new" argument. We have 7 billion people on this planet, which means we can do a lot of things in parallel. And—as I mentioned before—human nature. In any case, just as with the space race, an attempt to start building Solar Power Satellites at L4/L5 (which would have some pretty big benefits of their own, unlike the ridiculous notions of a Martian colony) would certainly lead to all sorts of useful spin-off technology that would indeed benefit people right here on Earth.

I'll give up my dreams of space until we fix Earth if you give up your dreams of having a nice car/nice computer/good entertainment until we fix things on Earth.

 

[Justin39640]

Here's a good lecture by Stan Love about what it would take and some of the problems that face us if we tried to do it today (posted 2012). He covers a lot of the things mentioned in the thread. I like that he ends it with "Let's go to Mars".

 

[Navigator]

Why build a Large Hadron Collider when there are still people starving? Why develop better computer technology when we could be fighting to free people from tyranny and oppression? Why publish novels when there are still people who can't read?

Sorry, I don't buy the "we need to fix all our problems before we try anything new" argument. We have 7 billion people on this planet, which means we can do a lot of things in parallel. And—as I mentioned before—human nature. In any case, just as with the space race, an attempt to start building Solar Power Satellites at L4/L5 (which would have some pretty big benefits of their own, unlike the ridiculous notions of a Martian colony) would certainly lead to all sorts of useful spin-off technology that would indeed benefit people right here on Earth.

I'll give up my dreams of space until we fix Earth if you give up your dreams of having a nice car/nice computer/good entertainment until we fix things on Earth.

You misunderstand me.

I said:

Still, why invest in that even when focusing on the more immediate problems here on earth can potentially help the step to the moon and beyond far more productively in the long run?

Your argument that I am saying we should all give up personal dreams to be consumers has nothing to do with me personally.

 

[xtifr]

You misunderstand me.

Not at all. You failed to read my second paragraph, which answered you directly. (The first and third paragraphs, I'll admit, were for a more exaggerated position than yours, but the second paragraph covered precisely the point you raise.) We can do things in parallel, and the benefits flow both ways, and waiting for some sort of magical pie-in-the-sky improvements that will come tomorrow is both silly and counter to human nature. Sure, Columbus might have lost fewer men if he'd waited a few hundred years, until we developed intercontinental aircraft, before setting off to discover the western route to the Indies, but that would also mean that he'd be dead!

Why invest in the LHC when focusing on more immediate problems can potentially help us build better colliders in the future? The Higgs would have still been there. Why buy a computer now, when far more powerful computers will be available in ten years? Why buy a car now when in a hundred years we might have personal jetpacks and flying cars?

You can always hope for improvements, but if you always wait for improvements, nothing ever gets done. Why not start now? Especially since we can still work on other problems at the same time. The creation of the LHC didn't prevent people from discovering medicines, or overthrowing middle-Eastern tyrannies, or providing aid to earthquake and tsunami victims. We're not limited as a species to working on one thing at a time. And if we never start, it'll never happen, so why not start now?

And if you're still not convinced, think of this. There are huge numbers of people so determined to get into space that they're taking the idea of a Martian Colony seriously. And many of them have money. What will it take to get them to use that money more wisely? Your vague promises that "focusing on problems here will make that easier in the future?" Or my* actually-sensible plan for getting into space (which is what most of them really want)? Again, consider human nature.

* Technically, it's Gerry O'Neill's plan, not mine, and it could probably use some updating, but it's still better than the To Mars crowd's plans.

 

[GlennB]

The presumption seems to be that a Mars colony would be a good thing, if only we could work out how to do it and get the funding.

But why go for that? Why not a deep-seabed colony? Or autonomous flying cars? Or orbital solar power systems? Or .....

So far the best reason I've seen to justify a Mars project is "Because it's there! It's a challenge to human ingenuity". This is true and a fine reason (seriously - I'd love to see the waters of Europa explored, just for example) but it applies equally well to scores of other highly ambitious projects.

So - why Mars? I suspect the answer is that failure to manage the relatively simple task of a Mars colony pretty much wrecks our deeper SF fantasies. It means that we're stuck with just this planet while maybe lobbing a toy or two into the cosmos to do a little exploring for us.

 

[Mark6]

So - why Mars? I suspect the answer is that failure to manage the relatively simple task of a Mars colony pretty much wrecks our deeper SF fantasies. It means that we're stuck with just this planet while maybe lobbing a toy or two into the cosmos to do a little exploring for us.

I think it is more because or over a century Mars has had a place in popular culture which Europa or Ceres or even Phobos do not have. Note that "Martian" is a recognizable English word, while "Europan" or "Cerian" are not.

 

[Cainkane1]

Help Wanted: Astronauts Needed for Mars Colony (Wired)



I think I'll pass. Of course they wouldn't choose me anyway.
I imagine they'll have plenty of volunteers though.

I'll pass also. People might go crazy just getting there. If there is a crime committed what will they do with the perpetrator? If they run out of food it will be very difficult to help them. Medicine, social problems, famines.

If you decide you want to leave Mars it won't be easy to return.

 

[Navigator]

And if you're still not convinced, think of this. There are huge numbers of people so determined to get into space that they're taking the idea of a Martian Colony seriously. And many of them have money. What will it take to get them to use that money more wisely? Your vague promises that "focusing on problems here will make that easier in the future?" Or my* actually-sensible plan for getting into space (which is what most of them really want)? Again, consider human nature.

If you are claiming this thing called 'human nature' requires that the huge numbers of people who can afford to do so will choose the option of space colonizing over methods of fixing the problems that face us on this planet, then I have no argument as to a cure for that particular disease.

Those who choose such investment do so to escape something bigger than their money can fix. Essentially fools and their money are soon enough parted as stories of salvation in the heavens are no more real just because scientists take up that batten and run with it.

Fortunately there are scientists (and general everyday folk) who realize the wisdom in fixing our immediate problems and focusing on the promise of the heavens are purposefully put in the 'things to do after we sort our **** out' basket.

Equally an aspect of 'human nature', albeit a different expression.

 

[Red Baron Farms]

If you are claiming this thing called 'human nature' requires that the huge numbers of people who can afford to do so will choose the option of space colonizing over methods of fixing the problems that face us on this planet, then I have no argument as to a cure for that particular disease.

Those who choose such investment do so to escape something bigger than their money can fix. Essentially fools and their money are soon enough parted as stories of salvation in the heavens are no more real just because scientists take up that batten and run with it.

Fortunately there are scientists (and general everyday folk) who realize the wisdom in fixing our immediate problems and focusing on the promise of the heavens are purposefully put in the 'things to do after we sort our **** out' basket.

Equally an aspect of 'human nature', albeit a different expression.

Don't forget that wanderlust is every bit as much a part of human nature as building and protecting the nest is for others.

 

[Morchella]

After perusing the Mars One website I can see it is obviously a super scam. You can get T shirts, coins, glass replicas, and a bunch of other trinkets for sale for the so called non profit. I don't know what they call a non profit in the Netherlands but it is not what we call it here in USA. There is no word on how much has been raised so far with crowd sourcing.
I guarantee that there will never be a single mission manned or unmanned for Mars One ever. This guy, Bas Lansdorp is an "entrepreneur" which is supposed to give his Nigerian type pitch some kind of respectability. He's hoping there are enough fools in the world to finance his fraud. Even if he gets a lot of money there will never be a launch of anything. This is all talk. There is no mention of a launch site or any projects in progress in the preliminary stage and he still says 2023. There is a mission concept study contract with Lockheed Martin but so far nothing is being actually built. What makes me more suspicious is that Lansdorp was at first saying 2014 for the first unmanned mission but now the website says 2018. The trend of pushing up the date will go on as long as there are dupes to give him money.

 

[Navigator]

Don't forget that wanderlust is every bit as much a part of human nature as building and protecting the nest is for others.

Of course. But it does work the other way too.

If people with the most money then wish to invest that into off planet enterprise and leave the nest - fine.

I think though, they want their cake and to eat it as well - as the saying goes.

They will require the backing of those earthbound who have been primed in the romance of space exploration and adventure so it will get down to how many dreamers they can convince to support the idea.

Making it real though - might as well try wishing god into existence for all the good it would do.

 

[GlennB]

I think it is more because or over a century Mars has had a place in popular culture which Europa or Ceres or even Phobos do not have.

They will require the backing of those earthbound who have been primed in the romance of space exploration and adventure so it will get down to how many dreamers they can convince to support the idea.

Aye.

 

[Justin39640]

Not at all. You failed to read my second paragraph, which answered you directly. (The first and third paragraphs, I'll admit, were for a more exaggerated position than yours, but the second paragraph covered precisely the point you raise.) We can do things in parallel, and the benefits flow both ways, and waiting for some sort of magical pie-in-the-sky improvements that will come tomorrow is both silly and counter to human nature. Sure, Columbus might have lost fewer men if he'd waited a few hundred years, until we developed intercontinental aircraft, before setting off to discover the western route to the Indies, but that would also mean that he'd be dead!

Why invest in the LHC when focusing on more immediate problems can potentially help us build better colliders in the future? The Higgs would have still been there. Why buy a computer now, when far more powerful computers will be available in ten years? Why buy a car now when in a hundred years we might have personal jetpacks and flying cars?

You can always hope for improvements, but if you always wait for improvements, nothing ever gets done. Why not start now? Especially since we can still work on other problems at the same time. The creation of the LHC didn't prevent people from discovering medicines, or overthrowing middle-Eastern tyrannies, or providing aid to earthquake and tsunami victims. We're not limited as a species to working on one thing at a time. And if we never start, it'll never happen, so why not start now?

And if you're still not convinced, think of this. There are huge numbers of people so determined to get into space that they're taking the idea of a Martian Colony seriously. And many of them have money. What will it take to get them to use that money more wisely? Your vague promises that "focusing on problems here will make that easier in the future?" Or my* actually-sensible plan for getting into space (which is what most of them really want)? Again, consider human nature.

* Technically, it's Gerry O'Neill's plan, not mine, and it could probably use some updating, but it's still better than the To Mars crowd's plans.

Great points. I'm not sure stations at L4 or L5 would be easier though. The way I understand it is that Mars is the second most hospitable place in the solar system to humans to survive (that isn't saying much, as we all know lol). Space stations (in deep space) are probably harder to construct and maintain. Also to shield. You have to worry about radiation from all sides. On a planet, not so much. And Mars' thin atmosphere offers some protection. There's also water and a way to make fuel there. These are some of the same reasons to try it before a moon base too.

Creating the technologies needed for such a voyage are probably the first steps to establishing permanent settlements in open space. Not the other way around.

 

[Justin39640]

The presumption seems to be that a Mars colony would be a good thing, if only we could work out how to do it and get the funding.

But why go for that? Why not a deep-seabed colony? Or autonomous flying cars? Or orbital solar power systems? Or .....

So far the best reason I've seen to justify a Mars project is "Because it's there! It's a challenge to human ingenuity". This is true and a fine reason (seriously - I'd love to see the waters of Europa explored, just for example) but it applies equally well to scores of other highly ambitious projects.

So - why Mars? I suspect the answer is that failure to manage the relatively simple task of a Mars colony pretty much wrecks our deeper SF fantasies. It means that we're stuck with just this planet while maybe lobbing a toy or two into the cosmos to do a little exploring for us.

Did you see Europa Report? The plot is a bit eh but the technical stuff was kinda cool. On Netflix now

I don't think there's anything relatively simple about it. It's a huge challenge but not an impossible one. What's so wrong with the idea of "going where no man has gone before" and constantly pushing the envelope (besides the cliche TV line lol)?

I think the word "colony" is a bit of an overstatement for the first tries at this. Research stations would probably be a better term. IMO

The Higgs Boson cost a bit over 13 billion to find. I'm wondering if the "less than enthusiastic about manned space exploration" crowd found that wasteful?

Saying things are just Sci-Fi, I find to be silly too. A lot of things that were Sci-Fi 50 to 100 years ago are reality today. Who can really tell what the next 50 to 100 years holds in store for us? I'm thinking positively.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

A small point - can a human foetus/infant develop normally in low g?

Quite an important point when it comes to long-term space colonies, wherever they are.

“Sustaining life beyond Earth either on space stations or on other planets will require a clear understanding of how the space environment affects key phases of mammalian reproduction,” write the researchers.

"Currently no mice or rats have developed while in microgravity throughout the entire developmental cycle"

eta: I realise that Mars is low-g, not micro-g, but it's a worry if we're planning to build self-sustaining colonies up there. Any volunteers?

That's a interesting question, although you phrase it somewhat disingenuously (as usual) as if it were a show stopping failure. You should be familiar enough with space to know that low-g is NOT micro-g, so conflating the two only muddies the water. It would be a more accurate question to ask: if humans can breed in normal gravity, why couldn't they do so in reduced gravity?

Unfortunately, we've yet to send up a rotating habitat, so there's no way to test it for sure at the moment. But we can go to higher gravities by raising embyros in a centrifuge, which seem to develop normally up to at least 2.5g, so it's reasonable to assume that lower gravity won't be critical either, so long as there's enough to indicate which way is down.

[ETA] If you're asking about long-term space colonies instead of Mars, pretty much everyone already agrees that rotating habitats are going to be essential. Not even considering development, there's the bone loss, and all of the difficult engineering and hygiene issues that arise when showers don't work and crap doesn't roll downhill.

But why go for that? Why not a deep-seabed colony? Or autonomous flying cars? Or orbital solar power systems? Or .....

Why not? Those sound like pretty good ideas to me. A good idea does not stop being a good idea when there are other good ideas lying around.

If you want to add a scarcity factor to the hypothetical discussion, do so, and provide some estimates for the cost and benefits of the other programs, and we can compare them. I'll throw in some ideas of my own - the Mars Direct plan isn't the first project I'd fund by a long shot, but despite that it remains a good one.

 

[Puppycow]

Bump.

May be little more than a scam in any case:

Mars One finalist speaks out, says Dutch non-profit likely scamming its rubes

Ars has voiced its skepticism of the Mars One plan ever since news of it broke, and it seems that double-take was warranted. Today, writer Elmo Keep published an interview with Dr. Joseph Roche, a professor at Dublin's Trinity School of Education with a PhD in physics and astrophysics who happened to be a Mars One finalist. Though Roche advanced to the inner circle, he spoke out to detail some of his sketchy behind-the-scenes dealings with Dutch non-profit Mars One.

. . .

The professor told Keep that ranking within Mars One is points-based; when you are selected to advance through the application process, you join the “Mars One Community,” and you are given points as you move through each next level. The points are arbitrary and have nothing to do with ranking, but “the only way to get more points is to buy merchandise from Mars One or to donate money to them,” Roche told Keep. So, in essence, people are likely paying their way to a final round.

It goes downhill from there.

The TV production company that was going to produce their reality TV series pulled out. The selection process is based on who buys the most merchandise. They are making participants sign non-disclosure agreements.

 

[Beelzebuddy]

I have to admit, I wasn't expecting their money-making scheme to be quite that direct.

 

[LSSBB]

I have to admit, I wasn't expecting their money-making scheme to be quite that direct.

Yeah, pay-to-play is pretty blatant.

 

[Hellbound]

It's probably a statement on my cynicism and lack of faith in humanity that I don't find this suprising at all.

ETA: Not much work for a Merchant of Doom these days...too many people are making their own for me to find customers.