Human colony on Mars in 2023?

[mike3]

I think the biggest problem with robotic missions is the communications lag. Especially with landers. By the time you find out on Earth that you need to make a split second decision it's already too late. (boom)

However, that seems like an incentive to develop better AI.

 

[ben m]

I was also wondering, what about gravity? 40% of Earth's. That might make some operations easier? Any opinions? We fix stuff in zero G in a vacuum now. Anywhere else has to be easier to work than that.

Gravity is sort of a win-some-lose-some. Worse than zero G: you can't just move large objects by hand. You can't nudge a habitat module into position, or flip a car over to work on the bottom, etc.. You need cranes, hoists, rigging. Better than zero G: you can put your tools down without losing them. 0.4g is pretty unambiguously better than 1g, though.

We "fix things" in vacuum now---if by "fix" you mean "unplug the broken one, throw it away, and plug in a new one". And those fixes aren't easy. Something that would take half-an-hour on Earth can be a fifteen-hour, three-EVA epic on ISS. Sure, Mars advocates can brush this off by saying NASA is too conservative, they play everything safe, while Mars colonists would be willing to shoulder risks.

Here's the problem: "shouldering more risks" means "working faster and improvising", by contrast with the checklist-oriented NASA approach. Speed and improvisation mean mistakes. Mistakes on Earth mean waste of time, money, valuables, life. You cut yourself on a rock while gardening, you make three trips back and forth to the grocery store because you were too rushed to make a shopping list, you disable a safety-interlock that's slowing down a repair, you misread the manual for a car repair and the engine throws a rod. On Mars "cut yourself" means "dead from a spacesuit leak". "Three trips back and forth" means a repair that needed to be fast is actually slow. "disable a safety interlock" means that your Earthside engineers may have intended it to be impossible to kill the whole colony, but that intention may not be sustained in practice. "misread a manual" might take you rapidly from "three backup oxygen-generating systems" to "zero oxygen-generating systems"

 

[Navigator]

I think the biggest problem with robotic missions is the communications lag. Especially with landers. By the time you find out on Earth that you need to make a split second decision it's already too late. (boom)

Yes. We will have to relinquish that kind of control, exactly for that reason.
Send them out never to return - fully self sufficient and capable of fixing and reproducing themselves using materials they can mine.

Which will mean - as was mentioned, developing AI sufficiently for this to happen. Making actual ships which can also be AI.

It isn't about humans beings going off on adventures. We have literally got to make it here on this planet.

The dream to colonize with human cargo is non realistic and the general vibe among the plebs is that we should be paying total attention to our present situation here on the planet and finding ways to improve that by investing in that rather than investing in outer space ventures.

However the romance of the whole idea is still strongly appealing enough that it is a barely heard grumble at present.

Hopefully people will come to the understanding they are being sold a fantasy all wrapped up in science this time rather than religion.

 

[Morchella]

Navigator has it right. We need to get our ducks in a row here before we even think of moving on.
I doubt if the human race can do anything about climate change except make it worse. Who is going to be the first to give up fossil fuel even when it comes from oil shale and coal? You can bet that Joe six pack is going to drive his truck and keep his thermostat at 70 until all the fuel is gone.
Who is going to give up their religion that gives them dominion? Because who cares about earth when I can go to heaven.
Who is going to be the first to stop having sex so the population can equalize with the resources available? I can't envision much of a future for the species when it's shortsighted stupidity is incorrigible. From a biologists point of view I see the human race heading straight for extinction or at least extermination in wide swaths.
That is why I see this whole idea of a Mars colony in 2023 as a HOAX. It is just a ruse to get a bunch of naive "visionaries" to squander a bunch of money and be left holding the bag when the scammers abscond with all the money.
Science fiction is fun but if anyone thinks we are ever getting off this planet to colonize space then I don't think they understand biology or cosmology very well.

 

[theprestige]

I think the biggest problem with robotic missions is the communications lag. Especially with landers. By the time you find out on Earth that you need to make a split second decision it's already too late. (boom)

... and no human lives were ever at risk, and billions of dollars were not spent trying to safeguard those lives.

That's a small price to pay for losing the occasional robot to a split-second crisis beyond its reasoning capability.

Yet thousands would volunteer and many of those top minds would be honored to work on such an project. No?

So? You're shifting around a bit here. My question is about your priorities: What you think the best minds should focus on. And also: Your argument for why I should agree with your priorities.

Imagine you're talking to one of the best minds, and she's dubious about your Mars Colony proposal. She's a genius in materials science, and she believes that her best possible contribution to humanity is a quantum leap forward in surface/submerged offshore human habitats. What do you say to convince her that her time would be better spent working on new materials for a Mars Colony?

Also, by your reasoning, sending up the Apollo missions was a really bad idea? Same creek, no paddle.

The Apollo Project benefited from a window in which humans could do much more science than robots, but the cost of putting humans at risk and safeguarding them was still low enough to make the benefits worthwhile. There was also Cold War propaganda value, and for a brief period overwhelming public sentiment in favor of the project.

It's been decades since all of those things have been true for lunar exploration. All of those things have never been true for Mars exploration.

The risk is much greater. The cost of safeguarding human lives is much greater. Public tolerance for risking human lives is much lower. Public enthusiasm for costlly Pharaonic gestures is almost nil. The need for propaganda in the service of geopolitical conflict is completely nil. Robots deliver a much better science-per-dollar value today than they did in 1969. Humans haven't improved nearly so much in that area. We were already close to the top of our game in 1969. Most of the improvements we've made since then have been in our tools--and robots can use science tools almost as well as humans can, at a fraction of the cost.

And the bottom line is this: You still haven't explained what the concrete benefit is supposed to be.

 

[Justin39640]

Navigator has it right. We need to get our ducks in a row here before we even think of moving on.
I doubt if the human race can do anything about climate change except make it worse. Who is going to be the first to give up fossil fuel even when it comes from oil shale and coal? You can bet that Joe six pack is going to drive his truck and keep his thermostat at 70 until all the fuel is gone.
Who is going to give up their religion that gives them dominion? Because who cares about earth when I can go to heaven.
Who is going to be the first to stop having sex so the population can equalize with the resources available? I can't envision much of a future for the species when it's shortsighted stupidity is incorrigible. From a biologists point of view I see the human race heading straight for extinction or at least extermination in wide swaths.
That is why I see this whole idea of a Mars colony in 2023 as a HOAX. It is just a ruse to get a bunch of naive "visionaries" to squander a bunch of money and be left holding the bag when the scammers abscond with all the money.
Science fiction is fun but if anyone thinks we are ever getting off this planet to colonize space then I don't think they understand biology or cosmology very well.

So, NASA is a confidence scam?

As to your last sentence, I think this guy knows a thing or two about cosmology. He probably understands biology well enough to have an opinion.

This guy too.

 

[theprestige]

So, NASA is a confidence scam? j

Quite the opposite: I think NASA's openness and honesty about the real costs and benefits of a manned Mars program is a major factor in what prevents them from getting the funding necessary to realize your vision, and why they get funding for unmanned missions instead.

 

[Morchella]

So, NASA is a confidence scam?

As to your last sentence, I think this guy knows a thing or two about cosmology. He probably understands biology well enough to have an opinion.

This guy too.

Actually NASA has no plans for a manned mission on Mars. N.D. Tyson says that is what NASA "ought" to do according to him. I am more of a Bob Park fan that believes a manned mission would be frivolous. Tyson said nothing about colonizing.
Of course whenever I want to know what Stephen Hawking is thinking I always go directly to the Daily Mail because they never make up anything that might pander to the public's fantasies.

 

[theprestige]

As to your last sentence, I think this guy knows a thing or two about cosmology. He probably understands biology well enough to have an opinion.

This guy too.

While I appreciate Morchella's conviction, cosmology is probably not a relevant discipline in designing viable manned Mars program. Even Tyson doesn't cite his knowledge of cosmology in justifying his proposal for such a program. Instead, he cites his knowledge of... economics.

Basically, his argument boils down to: A massive government expenditure on aerospace R&D would stimulate the economy...

... Which is true for any massive government expenditure. A massive government expenditure on safe and reliable nuclear power R&D or water recycling R&D would stimulate the economy. And would have immediate practical benefits here on Earth, right now, today. Instead of risking lives, we'd be saving lives.

Which brings us back around to the question of why the best and brightest should be focusing on your vision, instead of some other vision?


Biology is relevant, but hell, I understand biology well enough to have an opinion. Unless you're about to explain how Stephen Hawking has the necessary biological expertise to validate your vision, you should probably abandon that citation before someone points out your appeal to false authority fallacy.

 

[Justin39640]

... and no human lives were ever at risk, and billions of dollars were not spent trying to safeguard those lives.

That's a small price to pay for losing the occasional robot to a split-second crisis beyond its reasoning capability.

That's a billion dollar boom!

So? You're shifting around a bit here. My question is about your priorities: What you think the best minds should focus on. And also: Your argument for why I should agree with your priorities.

Imagine you're talking to one of the best minds, and she's dubious about your Mars Colony proposal. She's a genius in materials science, and she believes that her best possible contribution to humanity is a quantum leap forward in surface/submerged offshore human habitats. What do you say to convince her that her time would be better spent working on new materials for a Mars Colony?

Well, I hope the top minds that work on curing cancer work on... cures for cancer. For a Mars mission, I would think that top engineers form the applicable fields would be best suited to join the effort. I didn't think I had to spell that out though.

My priorities? On a global scale? There's a ton. I also don't believe we're incapable of handling more than one at a time. Space exploration for the advancement of the species is obviously one of mine. Why would I convince you? I already know where you stand. I never said you have to agree with me either.

Well before I'd try to convince her of anything, I'd try to find out: is she Cute? Single? Likes to mountain bike?

Seriously though, I wouldn't try to convince her of anything. In fact I'd encourage it. Her R&D could be directly applicable (even if if it's just parts of it) to sustaining humans in inhospitable environments of all types.

And again, by your reasoning, YOU wouldn't encourage her to do that! Her R&D in advanced materials is likely to be pretty costly (top minds aren't cheap you know) To be fair, I understand it wouldn't be on the scope of a Mars mission but, if she ***** her job up, people will die there too. Maybe not all of them, but most likely some. Especially in the submerged parts.

The Apollo Project benefited from a window in which humans could do much more science than robots, but the cost of putting humans at risk and safeguarding them was still low enough to make the benefits worthwhile. There was also Cold War propaganda value, and for a brief period overwhelming public sentiment in favor of the project.

It's been decades since all of those things have been true for lunar exploration. All of those things have never been true for Mars exploration.

The risk is much greater. The cost of safeguarding human lives is much greater. Public tolerance for risking human lives is much lower. Public enthusiasm for costlly Pharaonic gestures is almost nil. The need for propaganda in the service of geopolitical conflict is completely nil. Robots deliver a much better science-per-dollar value today than they did in 1969. Humans haven't improved nearly so much in that area. We were already close to the top of our game in 1969. Most of the improvements we've made since then have been in our tools--and robots can use science tools almost as well as humans can, at a fraction of the cost.

And the bottom line is this: You still haven't explained what the concrete benefit is supposed to be.

The cost of the Apollo missions was, in today's money, about 100 billion dollars. Gemini, 7.3 billion. You can even include Mercury, which laid the groundwork, 1.7B. What was the ROI for these other than winning the (as one YouTube poster so eloquently put it) "biggest dick wagging contest in human history"? lol.

We put dozens of people in incredible danger. We lost three on the ground! All of those people understood and gladly accepted those risks. They were incredibly skilled/trained and highly motivated. The only difference is the cold war. That 200+ billion will pay a lot of Americans. The technical gains could be invaluable.

I'm a firm believer of "eventually, you have to put boots on the ground". I think humans working WITH tools like rovers, on site, would be a huge advantage over rovers alone as far as research goes.

All of that is to the eventual goal (within 1000 years) of colonizing at least local space. That doesn't include abandoning Earth or ignoring her problems. It might even help solve a few.

 

[Justin39640]

However, that seems like an incentive to develop better AI.

How about AI working with people instead of for them?

 

[Justin39640]

Quite the opposite: I think NASA's openness and honesty about the real costs and benefits of a manned Mars program is a major factor in what prevents them from getting the funding necessary to realize your vision, and why they get funding for unmanned missions instead.

Prevents them from getting the funding that they try to get? Even with the costs and questionable benefits they'd do it if they got the funding.

 

[Justin39640]

Actually NASA has no plans for a manned mission on Mars. N.D. Tyson says that is what NASA "ought" to do according to him. I am more of a Bob Park fan that believes a manned mission would be frivolous. Tyson said nothing about colonizing.
Of course whenever I want to know what Stephen Hawking is thinking I always go directly to the Daily Mail because they never make up anything that might pander to the public's fantasies.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/today/hi/today/newsid_9672000/9672233.stm

 

[halleyscomet]

You don't have much faith in Man's historic ability to adapt and overcome, do you?

Robinson Crusoe on Mars

 

[Navigator]

You don't have much faith in Man's historic ability to adapt and overcome, do you?

I have an appreciation for human potential but I see no evidence historically that Man has adapted and overcome anything significant,lasting and purposefully beneficial in relation to equality and transparency of agenda.

Some things are not seriously considered viable areas of Man's overall attitude which require adaption and overriding principles of sustained sensibility of purpose.

First fix the problems on the planet, then think about what can be done regarding 'out there' in the rest of the cosmos.

 

[xtifr]

At this point, I absolutely have to say that even though I'm very much a don't-keep-all-our-eggs-in-one-basket guy, who is convinced we should start migrating off the planet as soon as we reasonably can, and think the "we should focus exclusively on our problems here on Earth" crowd are short-sighted nincompoops with no understanding of human nature, I still have to side with the nincompoops when it comes to colonizing Mars.

In the short term, it's a ridiculous idea that is far more likely to have horrific negative effects than *any* positives.

The things we need to be focusing on are: ion engines (already working and deployed), which are the key to opening up the inner system and accessing the resources of the belt; electromagnetic shielding (research here is coming along nicely), so you don't have to worry quite so much about your gonads every time you go into space; and large-scale engineering techniques in microgravity (the area where we currently lag the most), so we can take advantage of the resources that are out there already, instead of trying to ship everything from Earth. (A small base—not a colony—on the Moon with a rail gun for launching mined material would be handy as well, and could be either entirely or mostly run by robots.)

With all that, we might be in a position to set up some large-scale solar power satellites at L4/L5, which could support tens (or even hundreds) of thousands of people in a shirt-sleeve environment with decent "gravity". Once that's all up and running, maybe we could start thinking about Mars. If there's any real point, which will still be debatable (maybe even more so).

 

[GlennB]

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?

 

[Navigator]

At this point, I absolutely have to say that even though I'm very much a don't-keep-all-our-eggs-in-one-basket guy, who is convinced we should start migrating off the planet as soon as we reasonably can, and think the "we should focus exclusively on our problems here on Earth" crowd are short-sighted nincompoops with no understanding of human nature, I still have to side with the nincompoops when it comes to colonizing Mars.

In the short term, it's a ridiculous idea that is far more likely to have horrific negative effects than *any* positives.

The things we need to be focusing on are: ion engines (already working and deployed), which are the key to opening up the inner system and accessing the resources of the belt; electromagnetic shielding (research here is coming along nicely), so you don't have to worry quite so much about your gonads every time you go into space; and large-scale engineering techniques in microgravity (the area where we currently lag the most), so we can take advantage of the resources that are out there already, instead of trying to ship everything from Earth. (A small base—not a colony—on the Moon with a rail gun for launching mined material would be handy as well, and could be either entirely or mostly run by robots.)

With all that, we might be in a position to set up some large-scale solar power satellites at L4/L5, which could support tens (or even hundreds) of thousands of people in a shirt-sleeve environment with decent "gravity". Once that's all up and running, maybe we could start thinking about Mars. If there's any real point, which will still be debatable (maybe even more so).

Well...its a start.

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?

No need to jump the gun.

 

[Justin39640]

I have an appreciation for human potential but I see no evidence historically that Man has adapted and overcome anything significant,lasting and purposefully beneficial in relation to equality and transparency of agenda.

Some things are not seriously considered viable areas of Man's overall attitude which require adaption and overriding principles of sustained sensibility of purpose.

First fix the problems on the planet, then think about what can be done regarding 'out there' in the rest of the cosmos.

When you finish fixing the current "problems", what makes you think there wouldn't be new ones?

 

[ben m]

When you finish fixing the current "problems", what makes you think there wouldn't be new ones?

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.)

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"?

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