Slashdot Mirror
Let's Not Go To Mars
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."
We choose to go to mars not because it's easy, but because .... Wait... it's not easy?
Oh, well lets give up then
Something tells me Ed Regis isn't about to climb Everest either.
------ The best brain training is now totally free : )
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.
Pointing out the clear reality of a situation isn't leftist. It's realist.
... let's not go to Mars. It is a silly place.
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.
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?
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.
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 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?
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!
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.
Sheesh, evil *and* a jerk. -- Jade
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.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
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?
Happiness in intelligent people is the rarest thing I know.
Ernest Hemingway
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.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
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 body in our solar system that could sustain human life in any self-sustainable way, not even in the short term. And the odds of any such body being in any solar system within even a hundreds-of-light-years radius is miniscule.
We're stuck on earth. That's not a lack of vision, it's a reality that we need to accept. We need to accept that because it emphasizes how closely humans are tied to this planet and how important it is to maintain it in a way that keeps it habitable. There is no science fiction rescue coming. Earth is our one and only hope in the long-term.
SJW's don't eliminate discrimination. They just expropriate it for themselves.
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.
WhiteWolf666 an exBush supporter. All you new-school,compassionate,save the children Republicans can rot in hell
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.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
My point was more about the narrow-minded thinking of staying where we are--all exploration and leaving of your comfort zone is dangerous with great potential for rewards. I was not attempting to say that the New World is just like Mars. Thanks for your "idiot" comment though, classy opening salvo for a friendly discussion.
Michael Coyne
http://turthalion.blogspot.com
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.
I saw an Arnold Schwarzenegger documentary some time back that shows that Mars has humanoid women with three boobs. There's your reason to go to Mars. I plan on watching a newer documentary, The Martian, to learn more.
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.
http://www.geoffreylandis.com
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.
""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. :-)
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.
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
The real biggest hurdle, if I am to believe the internet, is the entirety of humanity except the individual behind any particular keyboard is an inept idiot who is incapable of forming a single rational thought. We clearly have no hope for reaching Mars and we will do good if we make it to lunch on Earth.
And yet maybe we SHOULD terraform the moon. Shooting rockets off the moon would require less energy than shooting them off the earth.
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
...I'm guessing Ed Regis has never had children?
Actually you were when you ignore reality. We do not possess the technology to go to Mars and sustain life. Period. It's a fools errand. We have limited resources, so to spend money on this non-senses is wrong.
(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.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
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.
So you do confirm that tiny solar panels on a tiny rover can generate about 140 watts for up to four hours per Martian day. That gives us the data (known solar panel type, surface area, power generated) to know how many and how big the solar panels would need to be for a Mars base.
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.
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
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.
"When information is power, privacy is freedom" - Jah-Wren Ryel
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.
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 -
"This administration is so incompetent that they cover their tracks with bigger tracks." - Seth Meyers
Tidal locked to the Earth, not the Sun. The "dark side" is not actually always dark.
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.
"This administration is so incompetent that they cover their tracks with bigger tracks." - Seth Meyers
John F Kennedy perfectly told the world WHY we should do hard things.
We do them not because they are easy, but because they are hard
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.
I don't think anyone that's serious about going to Mars is assuming that resource extraction and management is a cakewalk. Many science fiction authors that tend toward Campbellian work like Kim Stanley Robinson have contemplated what a permanent Mars mission would look like, and before a human ever climbs into a rocket the nation-state has sent dozens of missions to begin the resource extraction process, mostly in the case of the science fiction authors, atmospheric extraction of vital elements, but the point still stands that a lot of mechanized work will happen autonomously to prepare the way for permanent human habitation.
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.
Do not look into laser with remaining eye.
140 watts for 4 hours a day? That data, along with a little math and a sense of reality should tell you how wildly impractical solar is. It isn't just the enormous quantity of solar panels you need to generate a significant amount of power, but the batteries required to store the energy for the other 20 hours a day. Sadly, many people here on earth have similar fantasies about solar powering our own world. However, no amount of faith will bend reality.
On the other hand, the Liquid fluoride thorium reactor provides an extremely dense source of energy, which could enable significant activity on mars. The LFTR concept was originally developed for powering an aircraft, which should give you an idea of how compact it can be. It was never quite practical, because of shielding requirements, but that is not a problem on mars.
The truth is, we aren't going anywhere until people can learn to accept and embrace nuclear power. After that, we will have a boundless supply of energy, that will enable all manner of progress. It will also do so with the smallest environmental footprint of any existing option by far, and with the least loss of human life, even considering solar and wind.
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.
We don't have a state-run media we have a media-run state.
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.
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 could supplement generation capacity during the daytime when there's a peak load anyway (due to A/C usage and other daytime usage), in exchange for using utility power at night during non-peak times. In my opinion, the ideal combination is solar + nuclear: solar for daytime peak loads, and nuclear for baseline day and night. In some areas, this can be supplemented with wind power, and in other areas, hydro can provide baseline power. Between these four types (plus maybe tidal), it should be entirely possible to eliminate fossil fuel usage for electric power generation.
Now, for powering a colony on Mars, things are rather different, to say the least. It sounds like there's about 1/2 to 1/3 as much power available, which is a big problem combined with the high launch costs (how much it costs to get stuff transported to Mars, which makes it infeasible to simply bring more solar panels to make up for it). And of course the storage problem is a big one; with only 4 hours of usable sunlight (according to posts above), that means you need a lot of storage capacity, and batteries are heavy and costly to transport from Earth.
Finally, I agree with the naysayer in TFA: this whole idea is silly. We should be building a Moon base first. It's much closer, easy to resupply, easy to get people back to Earth from, etc. It's a much more sensible first step if you're going to try to establish a human presence on another celestial body.
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.
"I don't know, therefore Aliens" Wafflebox1
They're actually genetically changed to use less oxygen.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...
"In May 1999 he spent a record 21 hours on the summit without supplementary oxygen, even sleeping there."
There are two types of people in the world: Those who crave closure
Relevant SMBC
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 shot into orbit on a chemical rocket.
No one is talking Star Trek Warp engines....Ion would do just fine. Maybe those EM Drives if they turn out to be something other than another Cold Fusion. But trying to get to Mars with the current or even the next generation of space craft is like setting out to cross the North Atlantic in a dingy.
Seems to me the technology is available in bits and pieces here in there. Political will, focus, determination and of course money are all that's needed. We went from shooting small rockets into orbit to landing on the moon in less than a decade using slide rules and pencils. No reason we can't actually build something like this.
When Fascism comes to America, it will call itself Anti-Fascism, and tell you to give up your guns.
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.
"Malo periculosam, libertatem quam quietam servitutem." -- Jefferson
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.
"This administration is so incompetent that they cover their tracks with bigger tracks." - Seth Meyers
Not for nine months. Not even close. You were going land to land and would spend about a month at sea in any one stretch. Also the air around you is breathable, the water below you has food in it. So not comparable i wounder about you ppl that compare these things. You clearly have *no* idea about the orders of magnitude of difference between the 2 endeavours.
If information wants to be free, why does my internet connection cost so much?
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. When a family moves out of an apartment building, do all the other families say "screw it, lets trash the place!"
Some privacy policy Slashdot.
"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 that time, there was no GPS, no radio, no refrigerator, not even an engine. Maps were populated with "here be dragons", "end of the world" and such - today we know it - nonsense.
Today we know exactly what waits for us in Mars: cold; radiation; lack of atmosphere pressure; lack of breathable air; scant natural resources. We know exactly how to go there, and exactly how long it takes. So, is taking humans to Mars really as daunting a task as taking humans from Europe/Africa to the lands on the East?
Stupidity is an equal opportunity striker.
Fellow slashdotter Bill Dog