Mars Colonies and Class Warfare (examiner.com)

MarkWhittington writes: An argument about class warfare has broken out over the notion of a commercial Mars colony. It started when Elon Musk, who is said to be planning to retire on the Red Planet, mused that World War III could ruin his plans to settle Mars by destroying the Earth or at least damaging civilization sufficiently that space exploration has to be put off indefinitely, Newsweek, taking up the theme of another sort of planetary disaster, accused Musk and other space-minded billionaires of plotting to abandon the planet to the ravages of global warming while they go to Mars to live the good life.

Comments

This is so ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

Might as well talk about colonizing the center of the Sun and getting your drinking water from Saturn's rings. This may be some kind of bizarre nerdy entertainment, but it will never happen. Ever.

Re:This is so ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

This may be some kind of bizarre nerdy entertainment, but it will never happen. Ever.

A little over a century ago there was a person saying that very thing about heavier than air flight.

Unlike so many others, nerds know how to make their dreams come true.

Re:This is so ridiculous

[lgw]

Might as well talk about colonizing the center of the Sun and getting your drinking water from Saturn's rings. This may be some kind of bizarre nerdy entertainment, but it will never happen. Ever.

Well, not this century for sure. We know what a Warm Earth looks like - after all, the Earth naturally oscillates between warm periods and ice ages. It's a freaking paradise compared to Mars.

Of all the ways to avoid "the ravages of global warming", going to Mars would be the nuttiest I've heard. Is it somehow easier to build a self-contained biosphere on Mars than on Earth? What nonsense.

Re:This is so ridiculous

[ChrisMaple]

Gravity is 0.38 g. Radiation and lack of oxygen are handled by living underground in sealed buildings, food grown in sealed surface greenhouses.

Expensive. Difficult. Not fun. Possible.

Re:This is so ridiculous

[hawguy]

Really? And how is the human body going to survive on 38% of Earths gravity??? Idiotic. How are you going to build those "sealed buildings" and "greenhouses"? From material from the Home Depots on Mars?? Science fiction is fun to read, but it is FICTION. We cannot live on Mars. We have evoloved to live on Earth.

The human body can survive in 0% of Earths Gravity (at least for 14 months), so it's not like the body won't adapt to lower gravity. There may be some long term side effects that shorten (or lengthen) lifespan, but hey, living on Mars is risky enough that a shorter lifespan is practically guaranteed.

However long-term life on Mars may preclude ever returning to Earth's gravity, though it's possible that some rehabilitation and slow re-acclimation on the long trip home may make it possible to return.

I think it's technically possible to send people to Mars over the next decade or two, but probably not economically feasible for a billionaire or two, the Apollo program reportedly cost $170B in today's dollars, which is "only" around 30% of one years of the USA's military spending. So redirecting 20% of the military budget toward the project for 10 years should be enough money to pay for it.

Though right now, there's not much reason to do so except for the novelty factor - a life-extinguishing global disaster is pretty unlikely in the next century, and we have more pressing problems to solve on earth. But eventually it probably makes sense to colonize off-planet, just for redundancy.

Re:This is so ridiculous

[JoeMerchant]

A functioning Stellarator or any other working fusion system would cure most of the radiation problem (make your own magnetic field).

I've been wondering about the practicality of laying a planet-circling coil, superconducting would be nice too, for the purposes of covering the whole planet with a sufficient field. Would be easier to try on the Moon first.

Re:This is so ridiculous

[U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M]

That's why we should only send fat people, their mass will compensate.

Re:This is so ridiculous

[U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M]

I've been wondering about the practicality of laying a planet-circling coil, superconducting would be nice too, for the purposes of covering the whole planet with a sufficient field. Would be easier to try on the Moon first.

Or maybe even try something similar on a spherical orbital station that only looks like a moon.

Re:This is so ridiculous

[Wycliffe]

Really? And how is the human body going to survive on 38% of Earths gravity??? Idiotic. How are you going to build those "sealed buildings" and "greenhouses"? From material from the Home Depots on Mars?? Science fiction is fun to read, but it is FICTION. We cannot live on Mars. We have evoloved to live on Earth.

Is there any proof we can't survive on 38% gravity? Sure, coming back to earth after an extended stay would be problematic but your body would adjust just fine to weaker gravity and if you were never planning on leaving then this isn't a problem.

Raw materials are also not a problem. Again, there is no proof that mars doesn't have the same elements as earth.

Even radiation isn't a problem if you're ok living underground because admittedly your quality of life won't be much different underground on mars.

Which is probably the biggest problem with mars. Who wants to live there? Would you give up waterfalls, rivers, grass, outdoors forever?
I've heard of people retiring to a cruise ship but even they get to leave the ship and breath fresh air.
Even if we manage to wall off a few square miles, would you want to live in a 2 mile square with a bunch of other people and never be able to leave ever?

If we really want to colonize mars then step one is to send hundreds of robots and have them build cities, domes, pools, rivers, etc... before anyone arrives (kindof like what China is doing building cities where noone lives).

Re: This is so ridiculous

[Wycliffe]

You do know humans live in space now, right? I think the point was that if you had asked anyone along time ago, say in the bc era, they would laugh at the notion of humans living in space. The same logic may follow for mars and today.

No, in the BC era they thought gods lived in space and had no concept of the vacuum of space. Even in the last hundred years, the idea that people lived on mars or venus seemed very plausible. It's only in the last 50 or so years that we've realized the actual challenges of living in space.

Re:This is so ridiculous

[turbidostato]

"Of all the ways to avoid "the ravages of global warming", going to Mars would be the nuttiest I've heard."

Not forgetting the stupid notion that rich people need to go anywhere to avoid "the ravages of global warming" when the last working air conditioner, the last gallon of oil and the last kobe cow sirloin will be for them anyway.

Re:This is so ridiculous

[currently_awake]

Colonizing Mars is doable with current tech. Terra forming that rock is theoretically doable, in about 10,000 years. But no matter what tech level you have, fixing the Earth is at least 2 orders of magnitude easier by every metric. If the Billionaires are looking for somewhere to go, an orbital hab would be a better bet. Just attach engines and you can move whenever the peons threaten you.

Re:This is so ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

Therefore, anything anyone says has the same probability of happening. Why does this childish logic always pop up when space is mentioned?

There is no equivalence between the two things.

Also, dreams are just that, dreams. They don't move mass, you can't breathe them, and they don't undo biological damage from free fall and radiation.

Guess what? I also dream of a leisure society for all with life extension.

What do you think of that dream?

Re:This is so ridiculous

[currently_awake]

Under no circumstances would I ever put my food source on the surface of Mars. Solar panels feeding grow lights for the tunnels is the way to go. Eliminates radiation mutation hazards, cheaper to construct(no glass under pressure), lower maintenance(same), and you can use the greenery as budget parkland. As for gravity, if you make a cone structure (pointy end down) and spin it, you get centripetal gravity. Just match the angle of the cone to the spin rate and you can have full earth gravity.

Re:This is so ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, of course, this is all simple first-year mechanical engineering stuff. Where is my McMasterr Carr catalog?

Yeesh, the amount of complexity and insurmountable challenges you guys just handwave away... You are a programmer, aren't you?

I mean, why not just build a Ringworld, complete with Sun propulsion system. Easy peasy.

Re:This is so ridiculous

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

The first few generations will have issues, but evolution will adapt to the lower gravity with each new generation. The biggest issue future Martians will face, even if we manage to terraform it, is these decedents probably won't be able to return to Earth due to various changes in bone density, muscle mass, etc. The biggest issue with any terraforming is the lack of a magnetosphere.

Re:This is so ridiculous

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

Many thing the best idea would be to build a cap over the canyon system in the middle latitudes, the Valles Marineris. You could have multiple pressurized areas in case of a breach, and there is likely already caves in the walls. The pressure at the bottom is, at times, already enough for liquid water, Some interesting discussions about this area is already underway.

Re:This is so ridiculous

[plopez]

Except 100+ years ago heavier than air flight was occurring already every day, by birds. You don't see anything flying to Mars. The complexity in question is very different.

Re:This is so ridiculous

[lgw]

Colonizing Mars is doable with current tech.

We can't even get there with current tech. There's no way to keep a person healthy after a voyage that long, let alone on the surface. The only way we could make a colony work, even if we could magically transport millions of tons of material, is to tunnel deep underground. At which point: why? What would be different from being deep underground on Earth, aside from the whole "not sure if low gravity is eventually fatal" thing.

Re:This is so ridiculous

[thinkwaitfast]

It's not gravity, O2 or any of the other things that people list as hindrances to colonization. It's lack of anything economically remotely viable. People colonized different places on Earth to gain economically wanted resources. As it is, as the people on Earth rapidly chase a virtual life, there is less and less physical materials that they'll want once basic needs are met and the interactive vr holodeck is available to everyone.
Why mine an asteroid, or dig it out of the ground for that matter if you can have everything that you want and not be able to tell the difference between VR and RR.

Re:This is so ridiculous

[MouseTheLuckyDog]

That would be the least of the technical problems.

If you live in small individual caves, then yes. But caves large enough to contain entire cities would have parks, plus waterfalls are replaced by things like very nice caves.

Even then. Iamgine a junior level lawyer or investor living in NY. They live in a studio apartment, work in a cramped office and spend the rest of their time in cramped restaurants and clubs. They think they are living the good life. How would Mars be differenbt, except probably being less cramped?

Re:This is so ridiculous

[flargleblarg]

Just match the angle of the cone to the spin rate and you can have full earth gravity.

This. Yes. So much this.

Re:This is so ridiculous

[flargleblarg]

Or maybe even try something similar on a spherical orbital station that only looks like a moon.

That's no moon...

Re:This is so ridiculous

[hawguy]

The first few generations will have issues, but evolution will adapt to the lower gravity with each new generation.

Really, no, it won't. Not on any time scale that we would ever notice. It would take hundreds of generations for natural selection to work its magic with regard to this.

Depends on whether or not some people can adapt quickly to the low-G environment and how quickly those that can't handle the environment die off (or otherwise not allowed to breed). If 100,000 people are sent up, and only the top 20% of adapters are allowed to breed, then even the 2nd generation could be quite well adapted

Re:This is so ridiculous

[Anonymous Coward]

You don't see anything flying to Mars.

Uh... sure you do. We send things there all the time. Do you live under a rock?

Re:This is so ridiculous

[hawguy]

I think it's technically possible to send people to Mars over the next decade or two, but probably not economically feasible for a billionaire or two, the Apollo program reportedly cost $170B in today's dollars

How much of that was the cost of people in administration?

I don't know, but if you dig through NASA's budget, you might be able to come up with a good estimate. Though I'm not sure why it matters -- is it possible to run a $170B project without administrators?

The material cost is probably less than $1 million, the rest is work.

I doubt that's true, but even if it is true, why is that relevant? If I give you a million dollars of Bauxite, you're not going to turn that into a rocket without lots and lots of work (and money).

But yes, if it is done as a government project with the intention of building up know-how in local industry and nurture subcontractors to be able to create advanced rockets then yes, that is what any project will cost.

What does that mean? Any project that builds local know-how and nurtures subcontractors is going to cost $170B?

Re:This is so ridiculous

[tlambert]

But here we are talking about deleterius conditions, not simply "risky".

More deleterious than going to Christmas parties in San Bernardino?

Personally, I'm all for the "abandon ship" option; the assholes on Earth are getting near enough to a comparable risk, don't you think?

Re:This is so ridiculous

[ChromeAeonium]

Can we go back to when being cynical for cynicism's sake wasn't cool?

Re:This is so ridiculous

[N1AK]

The first few generations will have issues, but evolution will adapt to the lower gravity with each new generation.

That's a rather definitive statement for someone who, one assumes, is not an expert on the impact of low gravity on the human body. There has never been a human pregnancy or birth in anything other than earth gravity; it could well be impossible for all either of us know. Evolution isn't magical, there is a limit to how inhospitable an environment can be before the odds of life adapting before extinction becomes low.

Re:This is so ridiculous

[N1AK]

Your use of the phrase 'adapters' isn't a good indication of your understanding of evolutionary biology. Individual lifeforms don't adapt, at least not in a useful sense, what you'd want would be candidates who are inherently more viable in the environment. Given the universality of gravity on earth it is very unlikely that there is a considerable difference in viability in low gravity between individuals, unlike for example disease resistance.

Re:This is so ridiculous

[taylorius]

I'd put the exhaust port leading to the heart of the reactor in the coil's trench. I've a feeling that will be pretty secure.

Re:This is so ridiculous

[Maxo-Texas]

So say the odds for a life extinguishing event to occur is 1 in 4 million over the next 100 years ( about in line with historical wipeouts).

People win the lottery on lower odds multiple times a year.

What if the extremely low likelihood event occurs?

Re:This is so ridiculous

[KGIII]

Who would want to live there? Well... Me, but under some strange circumstances/rules. I can follow directions so I'll even do your science stuff while I'm there. I don't have a whole lot of life left so it doesn't pain me much to die on Mars. I'd like the internet and books, if you don't mind. I know, it will lag. I mostly poke buttons and read. I can still wait for a video to download, I'm not usually in a rush.

But, I make the rules. You can send anyone you want so long as they listen to my rules. After I'm dead, it won't be long, you can do what you damned well please. I expect to be able to order any terran good, including drugs, to be delivered every six months, no questions asked. I'll get the place squared away and ready for the folks who come later. I'm gonna be getting right ripped on all sorts of mostly illegal drugs (they'll be legal there, damn it) so you might want to make clear directions as I'm going to follow them to the letter so your science will be done as you directed. I'll even sober up a bit for it.

You can use what money I have stashed away to do other stuff. I won't need it. Give some to my kids, they'll understand and be happy for me. Have a good day, I'm out of here. Also, keep making porn for me.

Re:This is so ridiculous

[AmiMoJo]

You don't see anything flying to Mars.

Except all those probes with rovers that made a soft landing and the survived for over a decade. It doesn't seem unreasonable to think that given we were able to land on the moon and we have send stuff to Mars, and we know how to get people there and how to live up there and just need to develop the technology further, that it won't one day happen.

Re:This is so ridiculous

[AmiMoJo]

If only 20% of the population is allowed to breed then each will need to have 5 children to maintain the 100k starting population level. Since half of them will be male that means each female needs to have an average of 10 children.

I think this is one that is just going to have to sort itself out, in its own time.

Re:This is so ridiculous

[KGIII]

My neighbor really frowns on it when I give his cows a massage and let them drink beer.

Re:This is so ridiculous

[Nidi62]

I'd put the exhaust port leading to the heart of the reactor in the coil's trench. I've a feeling that will be pretty secure.

Make sure it's no more than 2 meters wide for added security. That's no bigger than a womp rat, and we all know how hard it is to hit them.

Re:This is so ridiculous

[blind biker]

Colonizing Mars is doable with current tech.

The only way we could make a colony work, even if we could magically transport millions of tons of material, is to tunnel deep underground.

Which is entirely achievable with current technology. So basically you proved the GP's point, but are still arguing with him/her for some odd reason.

Re:This is so ridiculous

[Hognoxious]

Is everything people said 100 years ago now automatically false? How about perpetual motion machines?

Re:This is so ridiculous

[KGIII]

Republican? Me? Oh my... No, son, I don't think even the Republicans would have me. That does not, of course, make any conclusions about my sanity but, the fact remains, I'm hardly a Republican. No, I'm the crazy bastard to the left of the elected Democrats, albeit for different reasons.

Re:This is so ridiculous

[edtice1559]

I wish there were a -1 Ridiculous moderation!

Re:This is so ridiculous

[I'm New Around Here]

I figured so, but the joke wrote itself. :^)

Re:This is so ridiculous

[Robotbeat]

Except 100+ years ago heavier than air flight was occurring already every day, by birds. You don't see anything flying to Mars. The complexity in question is very different.

Several of our machines are operating on or around Mars right now. Mars Reconnaissance Orbiter, Mars Express, Mars Odyssey, MAVEN, India's Mars orbiter, Mars exploration rover Opportunity, and the Curiosity rover.

In a pinch, we could send people to Mars using a similar architecture to some of these robotic vehicles (a scaled up Curiosity entry and descent system and a typical lander type landing would work, though inefficiently... supersonic retropropulsion is much better and much more scalable). We've proven that we can handle the complexity.

Self-sufficiency will take the rest of this century to establish, but there's absolutely no question that sending people to Mars (and back) is possible, and we've proven that we have the technology to do so (and we could've done it in the 1970s, though I'm not sure it would've been a good idea to do an unsustainable Apollo-on-Mars then... reusable vehicles are critically important for scalability and long-term viability... if you develop a reusable architecture, your upfront costs aren't THAT much different than an expendable Mars architecture, but instead of just a handful of individuals, you can send thousands or even tens of thousands and, over the long-term, build the infrastructure necessary for a self-sufficient Mars colony).

So unlike your bird example, we've established this is possible with our technology and that we could've probably done it 40 years ago if we had really wanted to.

Re:This is so ridiculous

[Coren22]

There are issues with eyesight from even the short stays in space. I am not sure if they would also occur in .38g like Mars, but it is a known issue that is pretty permanent.

Re:This is so ridiculous

[Coren22]

I mean, why not just build a Ringworld, complete with Sun propulsion system.

The Ringworld had no propulsion system. I am not sure where this comment comes from, but this is not the first time I have seen this exact comment. The Ringworld used solar wind in fusion thrusters to maintain its position relative to the sun, but that isn't propulsion. The only propulsion that was used in the Ringworld series was a FTL drive using superconductors in the floor of the Ringworld, but that couldn't be considered Sun propulsion.

If you want a sun powered propulsion method, the Bowl of Heaven books by the same author (Niven) uses propulsion from artificially generated solar eruptions put through a magnetic constriction to produce propulsion.

Re:This is so ridiculous

[kilfarsnar]

Might as well talk about colonizing the center of the Sun and getting your drinking water from Saturn's rings. This may be some kind of bizarre nerdy entertainment, but it will never happen. Ever.

Yes, it's ridiculous. Why would anyone want to "retire" on Mars? It would be the farthest thing from retirement. One would be constantly engaged in staying alive. Then there's the fact that one would basically live the rest of their life indoors and have to don a space suit just to walk outside. No more fresh air for the rest of your life. Yeah, that sounds great.

Re:This is so ridiculous

[hawguy]

If only 20% of the population is allowed to breed then each will need to have 5 children to maintain the 100k starting population level. Since half of them will be male that means each female needs to have an average of 10 children.

I think this is one that is just going to have to sort itself out, in its own time.

I wasn't thinking that the ultimate permanent population would be 100K - just the starting point to make sure they could find enough low-G capable individuals. The rest would be labor to help set up the base and would die off through attrition (some faster than others if they can't handle living in low-G). Sounds harsh, but it's planetary exploration, not Disney Land. I'm sure they'd still get plenty of volunteers even if everyone was told before hand that they may not be allowed to breed, and may even be encouraged (or assisted) to die if they can't handle the environment and get sick, a Mars Colony can't afford to keep someone in a hospital bed for years.

Re:This is so ridiculous

[dcw3]

The first few generations will have issues, but evolution will adapt to the lower gravity with each new generation.

Really, no, it won't. Not on any time scale that we would ever notice. It would take hundreds of generations for natural selection to work its magic with regard to this.

Not according to the most recent studies. http://www.theguardian.com/sci...

Re:This is so ridiculous

[lgw]

If you believe "transporting millions of tons of material"to mars is "entirely achievable with current technology", well, I don't know what to say.

Re:This is so ridiculous

[blind biker]

I don't have to "believe it" - it's a matter of scale and commitment, not state of technology. Our current technology allows it, albeit at elevated expenses.

Re:This is so ridiculous

[cyn1c77]

A functioning Stellarator or any other working fusion system would cure most of the radiation problem (make your own magnetic field).

I've been wondering about the practicality of laying a planet-circling coil, superconducting would be nice too, for the purposes of covering the whole planet with a sufficient field. Would be easier to try on the Moon first.

Actually, it'd probably be best to get the technology to work on earth first. At any scale.

Re:This is so ridiculous

[slashdot_commentator]

Yeah, after all, who could believe electrical power can be collected from panels that catch energy from the sun? Who really believes that one day humans will make working robots that can complete tasks, like constructing cars, or driving? (Or put together sealed buildings without direct human intervention?) Landing man on the moon is obviously science FICTION.

(And why on earth couldn't human bodies survive in an 0.38 Earth gravity environment? Fluids will still move around like they're in a gravity environment, bones won't have reason to elongate or become structurally weaker, etc. etc.)

Fuck, you are one stupid anonymous coward. What the hell are you doing here?

Re:This is so ridiculous

[slashdot_commentator]

fixing the Earth is at least 2 orders of magnitude easier by every metric.

Have you ever lived around human beings? We can't even fix "climate change" issues on this planet.

Re:This is so ridiculous

[slashdot_commentator]

Cynicism was never cool. Cynicism is about making a pithy response to a desperately held set of lies or lack of intellect.

Re:This is so ridiculous

[hawguy]

Your use of the phrase 'adapters' isn't a good indication of your understanding of evolutionary biology. Individual lifeforms don't adapt, at least not in a useful sense, what you'd want would be candidates who are inherently more viable in the environment. Given the universality of gravity on earth it is very unlikely that there is a considerable difference in viability in low gravity between individuals, unlike for example disease resistance.

Your disdain at the use of the word 'adapters' isn't a good indication of your understanding of English - if you're living in 1G all your life, then you do well in .3G, you've adapted to the new environment. It may be that your body is built better for the environment, maybe you just tough it out despite constant joint pain and digestive difficulties, or maybe you've learned some mental tricks to help you, but regardless of what it is, you've adapted.

Adapt - /dapt/ - verb
        become adjusted to new conditions.

Re:This is so ridiculous

[turbidostato]

"The first few generations will have issues, but evolution will adapt to the lower gravity with each new generation."

You are fricking kidding, don't you?

Just to cast some context, it was Darwin the one that was right, not Lamarck, right?

"The biggest issue with any terraforming is the lack of a magnetosphere."

Not within your (flakey) view of the world: once you think about it, lacking a magnetosphere should be an advantage, not a problem, shouldn't it?

Re:This is so ridiculous

[plopez]

Not on a routine daily basis. Rovers are the "Hello World" of space colonization. Really simplistic "first stabs" ad a huge complex problem.

Re:This is so ridiculous

[plopez]

"3) "We" know how to send cameras on wheels. Sending people is the subject, not rovers."

Just a quick correction. The question is setting up a fully functional self-sustaining environment requiring no physical intervention from Earth. It must support a viable human population and all necessary plants and animals for the long term.

Re:This is so ridiculous

[rubycodez]

false, astronauts have huge problems, and there is NO ADAPTATION. they lose 1 to 2 percent of their bone mass PER MONTH and would die if ISS habitation for example extended enough. Thus they can't stay in space indefinitely. Someday we'll need spinning space stations and craft with 1G field.

Re:This is so ridiculous

[david_thornley]

We can send people to Mars. They may not get there in good shape, but they'll arrive.

Re:This is so ridiculous

[david_thornley]

That would suggest one life-extinguishing event every 400 million years, whereas we know that life's been around longer than that. What are you defining as a "life-extinguishing event"?

Now, suppose that we have a large Mars colony, and said event happens to Earth. What is it going to take for the Mars colony to survive? For a long time, it's going to have to rely on occasional shipments from Earth to deal with odd events. Getting it to be self-sufficient with some capacity to grow is going to take a LONG time.

Re:This is so ridiculous

[JoeMerchant]

Makes good sense, just not as grand as a planet girdling loop. Would definitely make dealing with trenches and mountains easier, and brings superconductors back into the realm of practicality. For that matter, we could just start manufacturing MRI magnets and juice them up one at a time - no current required, just environmental maintenance on the superconductor - I think most new ones work using liquid nitrogen only now (most used to use liquid Helium, I think - quite a bit more complex.)

Re:This is so ridiculous

[david_thornley]

And, with 8C of climate change and massive pollution, the most hospitable rock in the system will be Earth, with an extremely large gap to second place.

Re:This is so ridiculous

[JoeMerchant]

Killjoy... actually, in a practical sense, we've got fission reactors that work just fine, even in space based applications - it's more of a political thing why they're not used more often.

As posted above, the loop doesn't have to be planet-circling, can be a series of smaller, MRI like super-conducting magnets.

Re:This is so ridiculous

[Nethemas the Great]

I seem to recall folks like you claiming that trains could not exceed 30 MPH without risk of suffocating their passengers.

Re:This is so ridiculous

[tlambert]

And another data point for the misanthropy of the Space Nutter.

*They* kill 14 people and injure 24 more... and *I'm* misanthropic?

I think you need to check your dictionary...

Re:This is so ridiculous

[Robotbeat]

The trip to Mars takes around 6 months. We regularly send people to the International Space Station for 6 months. We are also doing a year-long mission with astronaut Kelly, and the Russians have done several year-long missions (and some even longer), and no big problems with radiation have showed up. ISS has about half the radiation dose as deep space (yes, galactic cosmic rays reach ISS, they're not purely a deep space phenomenon), so these year-long missions simulate the 6-month trip for radiation dose. And after the longest trip, 437 days in orbit, cosmonaut Polyakov actually walked from his capsule (feebly, sure, but still did it) even in full Earth gravity after the fairly rough Soyuz landing because he exercised on orbit. We've made improvements in exercise routines, so I have no doubt that after a much shorter trip and much reduced Mars gravity that astronauts will arrive in fine condition at Mars.

And on the surface of Mars, the dose rate on the surface (assuming you land at low altitude, which is the easiest place to land) is actually lower than ISS, not even counting adding regolith shielding to your habitat.

So there's no doubt in my mind that we can send astronauts to Mars, have them arrive in good shape, and return them back to Earth alive. This will no doubt be fairly risky, but so was Apollo. (And the biggest risks I would be most concerned about as an astronaut wouldn't be radiation or boneloss or whatever else the paranoia du jour is, but the launch, entry/landing at Mars, launch off of Mars, and reentry/landing again at Earth... These very dynamic events, and the procedures surrounding them, are responsible for all in-flight astronaut deaths.)

Re:This is so ridiculous

[Maxo-Texas]

Um... How about five in the last 444 million years?

End Ordovician, 444 million years ago, 86% of species lost
Late Devonian, 375 million years ago, 75% of species lost
End Permian, 251 million years ago, 96% of species lost
End Triassic, 200 million years ago, 80% of species lost
End Cretaceous, 66 million years ago, 76% of all species lost

In all of these anything very large pretty much died off.

Good points on the Mars colony. The main thing they'll need is power. If they have power, they can make water, air, and synthesize nutrients. Next, they'd need a sufficient population size (thousands- not hundreds).

I agree it would be challenging. We really need for space technology to be reduced in cost by two more orders of magnitude.

I was amused that anyone would think Martian colonists will lead a plush existence tho. Right now it would take about 2% of the planet's GDP (i.e. over a trillion dollars). But if we could drop the costs an order of magnitude, it would be .2% of the planet's GDP.

Re: This is so ridiculous

[LinuxLuver]

Terraforming Mars would be an excellent project. Job number 1 would be recreating a magnetic field around Mars....or least the parts we want to inhabit first.

Re: This is so ridiculous

[hawguy]

Terraforming Mars would be an excellent project. Job number 1 would be recreating a magnetic field around Mars....or least the parts we want to inhabit first.

Why start with the hard part first? Why not create a radiation resistant habitat first?

Re:This is so ridiculous

[lgw]

What we have to technology to do now is deliver a 1-ton payload safely to Mars surface and a 4-ton payload to orbit on the same rocket, for a mission cost of $2.5 billion.

We do not currently have to technology to make millions of these.

We do not currently have the technology to make thousands of these within the limits of our economy.

If you meant to say "it wouldn't require some new and uncertain scientific breakthrough", which is different from technology, then maybe. But really, I doubt it: "scale" is technology, and we've never done anything space-related at that scale. Plus "elevated expenses" understates it a bit, as it would take several thousand years for the US to build millions of these rockets even if that's all we did beyond subsistence.

Re:This is so ridiculous

[l0n3s0m3phr34k]

I think you mean "You are fricking kidding me, aren't you?" at least that sentence makes sense. Lamarck might be right when you look at epigenetics. Finally, the lack of a magnetosphere will mean that eventually any atmosphere we add will get stripped away by solar winds.

Re:This is so ridiculous

[lgw]

You know, that could actually work. I wouldn't call it "current technology", since it's not something we've actually built, but it's a very low-tech idea.

Re:This is so ridiculous

[turbidostato]

"Lamarck might be right when you look at epigenetics."

Which is something basically irrelevant to this: epigenetics can only work at the germinal line level or, indirectly, by allowing higher mutation rates on a part of the genome (as it has been suggested to happen on the immune system). As gravity-induced illness can't be prevented neither at the germinal line level nor at specific locations, it has nothing to do here.

"the lack of a magnetosphere will mean that eventually any atmosphere we add will get stripped away by solar winds."

So what? Provided lamarckianism were true, as you seem to believe, the losing atmosphere would happen slow enough for the species to adapt *and* (and that was my point) lack of magnetosphere would increase mutations, therefore adaptability.

Re:This is so ridiculous

[rubycodez]

so funny, even if true (which I doubt) what about when they have to periodically accelerate the ISS to higher orbit? boneless people would be in trouble

Re:This is so ridiculous

[RockDoctor]

He thinks you should be rubbing up your own cows and plying them with booze, and let him molest his own animals?

Re:This is so ridiculous

[RockDoctor]

Terra forming that rock is theoretically doable, in about 10,000 years.

I think you're wrong on that by 2 or 3 orders of magnitude. but I'm just a geologist - what would I know about planets?

They can have it

[al0ha]

Living on Mars would suck, personally I'd rather be dead than Red.

Re:They can have it

[Anonymous Coward]

Of all the rich people he's on the short list of actually doing something about on the up-curve of his wealth. Plenty of people come to Jesus after they have a couple billion. Up vote on the rather be dead. Mars would be a shitty place to live for a long time. The writer is just being a hyperbolic pric to carry some other related point.

Re:They can have it

[Anonymous Coward]

He'd be better off taking the plot from Moonraker. Cleanse the planet and start over.

First rule of new society: No moneychangers!

Re:They can have it

[JoeMerchant]

Well said, Fred.

Re:They can have it

[U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M]

First rule of new society: No money!

Fixed that for you.

Re:They can have it

[blindseer]

To each according to his need, from each according to his ability.

I see this often but few seem to even know where it comes from or what it would mean for society. Tell me, who enforces this policy? Who determines what an individual needs? How can one honestly determine what a person is capable of doing?

The answer is simple, it is the government that makes these determinations. It would be the government that determines a person's needs and their abilities. What do you do to a person that does not live up to their abilities? Are they punished? How would they be punished? Again the answer is the government. In other words that phrase would be more accurately put as, "The government takes and the government provides."

This has been tried many times in our history and a policy of government taking and giving is bound to fail. A society free to own their own property is not only very prosperous but also very generous to those with less. This is just human nature. Another tidbit on human nature, "Power corrupts." A government capable of giving you everything you need is also capable of taking all that you have.

Re:They can have it

[dryeo]

Many hunter gather groups used that philosophy. In a small tribal situation it works fairly well as everyone knows everyone and when someone is an asshole and takes more then his share, he'd get shamed into not doing it or leaving the tribe.
Still works present day in small groups such as families and some communes. Of course once you get more then about a hundred people it breaks down as everyone can't know everyone else anymore.

Re:They can have it

[dlt074]

do you really want to barter for everything? try it, it sucks. money makes life easier.

Re:They can have it

[dywolf]

Only until Quaid gets his a-- to Mars.

Science Fiction at its finest...

[bagboy]

Robert Heinlein would be proud.

Re:Science Fiction at its finest...

[mosdave]

damnit, and just when I ran out of mod points.

Re: Science Fiction at its finest...

[Anonymous Coward]

I think you mean Kim Stanley Robinson.

If you haven't read his Mars trilogy, you really need to. It talks about colonization, immigration, classism... It's seriously the best science fiction series I've ever read.

Re:Science Fiction at its finest...

[Fwipp]

Personally, I thought of Cowboy Bebop.

Re: Science Fiction at its finest...

[NEDHead]

If that is the best Science Fiction you have ever read, you really should read another, any other...

Re:Science Fiction at its finest...

[sabbede]

Woah! What about Pournelle? He's the one who wrote the book on Martian revolution.

Re: Science Fiction at its finest...

[IMightB]

I really enjoyed KSR's Mars Trilogy. It had it all: hard science, politics, murder/assassinations, adventure, rockets, space elevators. crashing space elevators messing up the planet. Really enjoyable. slow at times. intensely interesting. You probably wont like it if the only science fiction you read is space shoot-em-up /alien drama/cowboy genres.

I heard it on the radio

[Tokolosh]

I thought the Martians were coming here because they messed-up their planet?!

Re:I heard it on the radio

[ClickOnThis]

I thought the Martians were coming here because they messed-up their planet?!

Relax. Donald Trump will build a force-field around the Earth, and make them pay for it.

Re:I heard it on the radio

[Tablizer]

Explains his (tinted) tin-foil toupee.

Satiric reasoning at its best

[Anonymous Coward]

If you're rich enough to go to Mars, you're rich enough to have a bloody brilliant life on earth, whether it's ravaged or not!

Re:Satiric reasoning at its best

[U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M]

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/...

Re:Satiric reasoning at its best

[plopez]

Or buy a nation. Or create a sea habitat, etc.

stupid stupid

[Spy Handler]

Newsweek... accused Musk and other space-minded billionaires of plotting to abandon the planet to the ravages of global warming while they go to Mars to live the good life.

You can jack up global warming until every single molecule of polar ice melts, and on top of that you can detonate every single nuclear warhead in existence, and Earth will still be an infinitely more habitable place than Mars. So the accusation of abandoning Earth to become a hellhole while billionaires live it up on Mars is stupid beyond belief.

Mind you I'm totally in favor of Elon or somebody sending people to Mars, but that would be as an exploration and human achievement rather than some bullshit class warfare thing.

Re:stupid stupid

[Anonymous Coward]

Maybe the billionaires can set up a colony in Antarctica first, a vastly more hospitable and nearby location to set up, to see if they're really cut out for that kind of living.

Re:stupid stupid

[Nrrqshrr]

I think I figured it out, maybe the plan was to get everyone else to leave for Mars and leave Earth only to the richest.

Re:stupid stupid

[Tablizer]

You can jack...global warming...every warhead...[yet] Earth will still be an infinitely more habitable place than Mars.

Not quite. Mars would still have one less danger: violent jerks.

Re:stupid stupid

[JoshuaZ]

It is even stupider than that because Musk is a major proponent of alternative energy and getting rid of the internal combustion engine (hence Tesla) precisely because he's concerned about global warming. So even if this did make sense (and it doesn't for the reasons you correctly identified) they'd still have the wrong billionaire.

Re:stupid stupid

[JoeMerchant]

The main thing that's wrong with the Earth is all the people - those pesky creatures with "equal rights" to your own.

Mars would offer plenty of living space with little competition from "equal righted" neighbors, but I think I'd want to work on the biosphere for a few hundred years, at least, before staying there year round.

Re:stupid stupid

[Bing Tsher E]

Just the Phone Sanitizers and IT Professionals.

Re:stupid stupid

[fustakrakich]

Earth will still be an infinitely more habitable place than Mars.

Yeah, except for all the damn people...

Re:stupid stupid

[turbidostato]

"Mars would offer plenty of living space with little competition from "equal righted" neighbors"

Just adding up Sahara, Gobi and Antarctica you already get about 30% of Mars surface. If that's not enough, you can take open sea bottom for much, much more living space than Mars, also with little competition and much more hospitable conditions too so you can bet it's not living space the pushing force to go to Mars.

Re:stupid stupid

[Gavagai80]

The remoteness of Mars might offer some advantages if you want to lord over your new world as an absolute dictator and reintroduce slavery on a massive scale or things like that which might draw attack anywhere on Earth. The ability to ration air would offer a new tool for ensuring your subjects don't revolt, as well.

Re:stupid stupid

[turbidostato]

"The remoteness of Mars might offer some advantages if you want to lord over your new world as an absolute dictator and reintroduce slavery on a massive scale"

I'll tell you this:
1) Going to Mars because there's no people.
2) Applying massive scale slavery

See the problem?

Re:stupid stupid

[currently_awake]

A world where the guy in charge is completely dependent on a lot of people for life support/food/water/heat strongly promotes being nice. Slavery? You need a large police/military force to guard slaves (or they will revolt and kill you) and Mars will have a shortage of workers to start with, so no slavery. Upset Earth? Your colony will be dependent on Earth for supplies for a while, that won't work for you. You could make it a Theocracy. Sending all the religious loonies and criminals to the new world is a popular plan.

Re:stupid stupid

[Jeremi]

See the problem?

Maybe he's planning to enslave the natives.

Re:stupid stupid

[flargleblarg]

and Earth will still be an infinitely more habitable place than Mars

"infinitely" is a bit of an exaggeration.

Re:stupid stupid

[flargleblarg]

Saltwater is more hospitable than Mars atmosphere?

Re:stupid stupid

[Zontar The Mindless]

Don't try to travel to Europe. You'll fall off the edge.

Re:stupid stupid

[I'm New Around Here]

Don't let the air lock hit you in the ass on your way out.

Re:stupid stupid

[edtice1559]

If things get too bad, though, it may be impossible to keep us barbarians from crashing the gates so Mars would offer safety if not comfort.

Re:stupid stupid

[I'm New Around Here]

Not if the 'habitable place' on Mars equals zero, which at this moment it does.

Re:stupid stupid

[EdgePenguin]

They will be forcibly removed by the US government (and possibly other treaty signatories) who have agreed to preserve Antarctica. You have, quite by accident, highlighted a good reason why a new colony should be on another planet!

Re: stupid stupid

[Tablizer]

True, if you show up, the plan is off.

Re:stupid stupid

[Gavagai80]

If you offer people free passage and don't mention the slavery part, you'll get enough slaves.

Re:stupid stupid

[Zontar The Mindless]

I patriotically assumed you were located in the Americas. If that's not the case, then s/Europe/America/.

Re:stupid stupid

[JoeMerchant]

Even in desert and Antartica, you've got meddling politicians telling you what you can and cannot do, hundreds of years of tradition, laws, sacred this and that, not to mention all the wonderful endangered species that everyone is always trying to protect.

Re:stupid stupid

[JoeMerchant]

Pretty sure you'd need, or at least want, some Earth supplied support - at least occasionally. Running a slave colony would be a quick way to be sanctioned into isolation.

Re:stupid stupid

[JoeMerchant]

Yeah, especially at continental shelf depth, cause who doesn't like either a) breathing a heli-ox mixture, or b) living inside a pressure vessel that could violently implode from the smallest leak.

Re:stupid stupid

[careysub]

Please cite this strange treaty regarding Antarctica you are referring to. It looks nothing like The Antarctic Treaty the rest of the world knows about. It prohibits military bases, but military stations dedicated to scientific and other peaceful activities are permitted.

Not even the Madrid Protocol (a addendum that went into force in 1998 and expires in 2048) that bans mining prohibits constructing settlements on Antarctica.

The Antarctic Treaty System does not even challenge the claims to national sovereignty that have been filed over most of the continent. If any nation making such a claim wishes to build a settlement, or permit one to be built, in their claimed zone of authority, there is no other authority to challenge them. Indeed, it is assumed that nations making sovereignty claims, or operating stations in Antarctica, exercise national legal authority there.

No it is not some dirty international treaty keeping colonists from flocking to the Utopia Way Down Under.

Re:stupid stupid

[turbidostato]

"If you offer people free passage and don't mention the slavery part, you'll get enough slaves."

Maybe, but then you fail point one: "going Mars because there's no people".

Everything looks like a nail

[tsotha]

When all you have is a hammer, everything looks like a nail. Some people are locked into seeing everything as a function of class, leaving out about 95% of human existence.

And... Newsweek is still around?

Re:Everything looks like a nail

[oxbow lake]

I'm genuinely curious: are you white, male, and is your income above the median?

Re:Everything looks like a nail

[jedidiah]

What does that have to do with some clueless hack in the news media trying to tie space exploration to class warfare?

Re:Everything looks like a nail

[oxbow lake]

I asked because the poster made the effort to express on a public forum their opinion that the current class structure is unfairly under attack. This would fit for someone who was a member of a privileged group that benefits from this structure, in which case I would take his +5-insightful comment with a large grain of salt. It has nothing to do with the clueless hack.

Re:Everything looks like a nail

[tsotha]

Is this an attempt to disqualify?

Re:Everything looks like a nail

[david_thornley]

There is class warfare, and the rich are winning. That's why they think the structure is under unfair attack, and they want to discourage class warfare because they may not win the next battle.

Yes, Elon is evil.

[Anonymous Coward]

Yes, the man who has done more to preserve Earth than pretty much anyone in recent history is evil. Pay no mind to Tesla or Solar City.

Re:Yes, Elon is evil.

[Bing Tsher E]

You forgot about PayPal. He's still canceling out that and slowly becoming less evil.

On the radio this afternoon somebody asked if 'Elon Musk' was a brand of perfume.

Living on a mine field

[Doub]

How do they think all these strange circular features appeared all over the surface of Mars? Look at any virtual fly-by, there's not any safe plot of land large enough to hold a bed, let alone a house. And I'm not even talking about the cold, the solar radiation, the low pressure and the lack of oxygen. We don't have any hint of terra forming tech today, we won't have a functional one within a lifetime. At best Mars is a nice place to die.

Re:Living on a mine field

[captjc]

We don't have any hint of terra forming tech today

Are you kidding? One of the biggest and first steps in terraforming Mars is to introduce massive amounts of carbon and greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere to warm it up on the global scale. We are experts in that field because we are doing it to our own planet at an alarming rate.

Since we know that there is water on Mars, everything else is duck soup. Transplanting plants, especially algae, ferns, trees can turn massive amounts of carbon dioxide and water into oxygen on the long term. It is a fairly simple and straightforward process but it takes a long time.

Re:Living on a mine field

[Anonymous Coward]

No magnetosphere...

Re:Living on a mine field

[techno-vampire]

We don't have any hint of terra forming tech today, we won't have a functional one within a lifetime.

In 1940, the same could be said about sending a man to the Moon, but we did it in just under 30 years. Just because we don't know how to do it now doesn't mean that it's impossible, or that it will take generations to learn it.

Consider: if we can send people to Mars safely, we know how to keep them alive in hard vacuum, and Mars already has an atmosphere, and the radiation levels there aren't going to be any worse than those in space. It's quite possible that the colony will either domed or underground, with no need for terraforming.

Look at any virtual fly-by, there's not any safe plot of land large enough to hold a bed, let alone a house.

If you're talking about craters, they're currently believed to be millions of years old at least, and there's no evidence that meteors have been a significant hazard since before mankind evolved.

Re:Living on a mine field

[U2xhc2hkb3QgU3Vja3M]

All we need is a few good X-men.

Re:Living on a mine field

[Kjella]

Are you kidding? One of the biggest and first steps in terraforming Mars is to introduce massive amounts of carbon and greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere to warm it up on the global scale. We are experts in that field because we are doing it to our own planet at an alarming rate.

And the steps are:
1. Grow biomass for hundreds of millions of years
2. Bury it under thick layers of sedimentary rock
3. Bake in high temperature and pressure a million years
4. Pump it all up and burn in a few centuries

You may find that Mars didn't go through steps 1-3...

Since we know that there is water on Mars, everything else is duck soup. Transplanting plants, especially algae, ferns, trees can turn massive amounts of carbon dioxide and water into oxygen on the long term. It is a fairly simple and straightforward process but it takes a long time.

And that oxygen will just disappear off into space. If Mars had a magnetosphere, we could have at least tried but as it is the more air pressure you build, the faster it'll get stripped away. Unless you got a way to restart Mars' magnetic core - there's a Nobel prize or three in your future if you do - it's pointless.

Re:Living on a mine field

[turbidostato]

"One of the biggest and first steps in terraforming Mars is to introduce massive amounts of carbon and greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere to warm it up on the global scale. We are experts in that field because we are doing it to our own planet at an alarming rate."

Yes, we are experts at introducing greenhouse gasses into an atmosphere... provided there's a lot of cheap oil around to burn.

"It is a fairly simple and straightforward process but it takes a long time."

There's the old saying, "everything is easy, as long it's not me the one having to do it". Terraforming Mars is an easy feat... as long as it's not captjc the one having to do it.

Re:Living on a mine field

[Gavagai80]

Are you kidding? One of the biggest and first steps in terraforming Mars is to introduce massive amounts of carbon and greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere to warm it up on the global scale. We are experts in that field because we are doing it to our own planet at an alarming rate.

Last I checked, we've increased the atmospheric thickness of Earth by 0%. Call me when we can make it 100x thicker.

Re:Living on a mine field

[Gavagai80]

The lack of magnetosphere isn't really an issue for at least a million years. If you're capable of the magic of creating a planetary atmosphere from nothing then you'll be capable of refreshing it again every million years, no problem. We're talking about making an atmosphere 100 times thicker than it currently is, and changing the composition, and then replacing all the dirt on an entire planet with some that's suitable for planting.

Re:Living on a mine field

[Areyoukiddingme]

How do they think all these strange circular features appeared all over the surface of Mars? Look at any virtual fly-by, there's not any safe plot of land large enough to hold a bed, let alone a house.

Over millions of years. Spirit tooled around on the surface of Mars for 5 years before getting stuck in a bed of sand. Never hit by a meteor. Opportunity has been trundling around on the surface of Mars for over a decade, and is still going. No meteors. Curiosity, the size of a small car, has been rolling around on the surface of Mars for 3 years, and is also still going. Still no meteors. Mars is pretty safe from random falling rock.

Nor is Mars all that cold. In the summer, the day time temperature is right around 70F. If it had a reasonable atmosphere, nights would be cool, but not chilly. There's plenty of oxygen. The whole surface of Mars is various metal oxides. There's lots of oxygen to be had.

The lack of an atmosphere is the problem. There are various proposals for fixing that, all of which are mathematically possible. And none of which are possible within the attention span of the human race, other than making the project a religion. Which is certainly a possibility.

Re:Living on a mine field

[WalksOnDirt]

Plus, as someone else pointed out, an artificial magnetosphere may not be that difficult, especially if we can find room temperature superconductors.

Re:Living on a mine field

[lgw]

Nah, even then you'll never plant Earth plants on the surface of mars - not enough sunlight by a factor of four, I think.

Re: Living on a mine field

[thinkwaitfast]

Can you grow crops on the top of Mt Everest, because life on the surface of Mars is equivalent to life on Earth 16miles above above the top of Everest?

Re:Living on a mine field

[flargleblarg]

Are you kidding? One of the biggest and first steps in terraforming Mars is to introduce massive amounts of carbon and greenhouse gasses into the atmosphere to warm it up on the global scale. We are experts in that field because we are doing it to our own planet at an alarming rate.

Yes and there are just soooo many fossil fuels on Mars to burn to create greenhouse gasses.

Re:Living on a mine field

[dryeo]

Lots of shade tolerant plants on Earth that would be quite happy with the 48% sunlight on Mars. Light is the least of the problems with growing plants on Mars.

Re:Living on a mine field

[Blaskowicz]

We need to find Highlander, he knows a thing about making some sort of "atmosphere shield".

Re:Living on a mine field

[I'm New Around Here]

What? There was no such project in the one and only Highlander movie, which was titled simple "Highlander" and was released in 1986.

As in the story, so it is in reality: There can be only one.

Re:Living on a mine field

[I'm New Around Here]

Well, the fossil fuels on earth are simply the remains of ancient life in the form of the carbon atoms they were made of. The carbon would still be there if it had never been in dinosaurs or giant ferns.

As long as Mars also has stores of carbon, it will burn just as well as Earth's coal, despite never having been dinosaur shit.

Re:Living on a mine field

[painandgreed]

We don't have any hint of terra forming tech today, we won't have a functional one within a lifetime. In 1940, the same could be said about sending a man to the Moon, but we did it in just under 30 years. Just because we don't know how to do it now doesn't mean that it's impossible, or that it will take generations to learn it.

Well, the first thing we'd need to do to terraform Mars would be to give it a livable atmosphere, say something like 60% of earths pressure at ground level. While there is CO2 and other volatiles on Mars, not enough to give it that much atmosphere even if we beam energy down and raise the temperature. The closest place to get that sort of materials in sufficient quantities would be close oort cloud comets by sending them to Mars. Last time I did the math, getting that many comets (about a thousand Haley's comets) and smashing them into Mars (assuming that without slowing down they won't really cause too much damage to the planet) in 80 years still takes an amount of energy measured in total day output energy of the Sun, about .1 at 100% efficiency. That's divided up over 80 years so we really only need to capture 3.4^-7 percent of the energy of the sun over that period. That would mean a solar panel around Mercury orbit that would be 2200 miles by 2200 miles (sorry, should be SI units) assuming 100% efficiency. Building such an engineering feat would probably be another generation in building. I think it's safe to say that even if our current tech is sufficient to do that and we wanted to, we're about two generations out from terraforming Mars if what we know about Mars is correct.

It could be that we're off on the amount of local water and ice on Mars capable of turning into a gas at higher temps by an order of magnitude. In such a case, we could, in theory, heat it up with mirrors and achieve the same effect. Once there is enough atmosphere, heat, and water on Mars to rain, then it will combine with most of the perchlorate to form brine and give off more O2. With sufficient energy, we could hopefully smelt the FO2 into building material and put out more oxygen.

Re:Living on a mine field

[captjc]

I never said it was easy, I said it was process was simple and straightforward. Simple and easy are not always the same thing.

Re:Living on a mine field

[The-Ixian]

If that were the case then you wouldn't be able to call... because we'd all be cooked.

AC must have thought of this when asking for a call when the atmospheric thickness of earth increased 100x so the answer to your question is clearly: No

Re:Living on a mine field

[slashdot_commentator]

Yes and there are just soooo many fossil fuels on Mars to burn to create greenhouse gasses.

There could be. We won't really know until man sends a scientific expedition to study the issue for an extended visit. Or send robots capable of doing geological analysis.

Re:Living on a mine field

[turbidostato]

"I never said it was easy, I said it was process was simple and straightforward"

You are so cute!

What's your e-mail list? I certainly want to subscribe to it.

Re:Living on a mine field

[david_thornley]

It won't burn without something to oxidize it, and oxidizers are in very short supply in the Martian atmosphere.

Re:Living on a mine field

[captjc]

Simple (adj): having few parts : not complex or fancy
Easy (adj): not hard to do : not difficult

Examples of simple but not easy:

1) Digging a large hole with a small shovel. Simple, insert shovel, pull out dirt, repeat. Not easy as it is time consuming and back-breaking labor.

2) Losing weight and staying fit. Simple, eat a small amount of calories and exercise to burn off what you do eat. Not easy for many people, just go ask any fat person why they are still fat when it is obviously such a simple process.

Ravages of global warming?

[penguinoid]

If those morons think that a small increase in temperature is worse than living on a barren empty planet with no air, water, or infrastructure... maybe we should send them there first so they can see what it's like. I hope they enjoy the many months traveling there eating rehydrated space food in a tiny room.

Re:Ravages of global warming?

[phantomfive]

You may (accurately) mock them, but hey, this story has given Newsweek more page views than they've gotten all year!

Re:Ravages of global warming?

[chipschap]

You may (accurately) mock them, but hey, this story has given Newsweek more page views than they've gotten all year!

Oh, you mean they've doubled their count to about 12?

Re:Ravages of global warming?

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

If those morons think that a small increase in temperature is worse than living on a barren empty planet with no air, water, or infrastructure... maybe we should send them there first so they can see what it's like.

Musk and the like don't think that. They are investing in space exploration and settling Mars because it's a frontier and a challenge, not because it's easy.

It is Kevin Maney, the writer of the Newsweek article, who falsely attributes this belief and motivation to Musk and others. It's what's known as a straw man argument, and in this case one that brands its author as scientifically illiterate and generally a moron.

Incidentally, it is likely that the author, Kevin Maney, himself is a part of "the 1%", given his consulting work with major CEOs and his portfolio of publications. So it's not clear whether his class warfare writing is just a cynical way of getting more coverage or whether he is really is so dumb that he doesn't even understand that he is talking about himself.

Re:Ravages of global warming?

[raftpeople]

No air?? No water?? When I was a kid we got air once a week and no complaints or else!

Re:Ravages of global warming?

[blind biker]

If those morons think that a small increase in temperature is worse than living on a barren empty planet with no air, water, or infrastructure... maybe we should send them there first so they can see what it's like.

Musk and the like don't think that. They are investing in space exploration and settling Mars because it's a frontier and a challenge, not because it's easy.

It is Kevin Maney, the writer of the Newsweek article, who falsely attributes this belief and motivation to Musk and others. It's what's known as a straw man argument, and in this case one that brands its author as scientifically illiterate and generally a moron.

Incidentally, it is likely that the author, Kevin Maney, himself is a part of "the 1%", given his consulting work with major CEOs and his portfolio of publications. So it's not clear whether his class warfare writing is just a cynical way of getting more coverage or whether he is really is so dumb that he doesn't even understand that he is talking about himself.

Perfectly valid points, all three of them.

Re:Ravages of global warming?

[EdgePenguin]

No, they think a small increase in temperature might impact global agriculture and thus mean there isn't nearly enough food to feed 10 billion people. Then people start killing each other for food. This fear is justified.

Is this peak class envy?

[siphonophore]

Mankind is on the verge of its greatest accomplishment, to be executed by the bravest and most hardworking of us. Those that go will be miserable, scraping by on unending work and luck. If they get a foothold on the first thru tenth attempt (pre-foothold colonies will be likely wiped out, every inhabitant dead), a solution may emerge for economic transit and eventually tourism. Going early won't be pleasant--that will take decades. Once it's pleasant, it will become affordable to the middle class a few years later.

Instead of celebrating these people, these children lash out, in a fit of short-sightedness, envy, and the weight of their personal failures.

Re:Is this peak class envy?

[Tablizer]

I do agree it's a non-problem at this stage. If bunches of other plutocrats head for Mars, then it's time to complain. There are plenty of real existing problems to complain about before ranting at plots from The Jetsons.

Better we test space with dare-devil plutocrats than poor chimps, anyhow. (Also send politicians, lawyers, and Comcast executives.)

Re:Is this peak class envy?

[tsotha]

I do agree it's a non-problem at this stage. If bunches of other plutocrats head for Mars, then it's time to complain.

Why? Mars sucks. There's no air, the gravity is too low, there's no water, and it's far too cold. No matter how bad global warming gets on earth it will always be a nicer place than Mars. How many sponge baths would you have to take before you were ready to come back?

If the plutocrats have any brains they'll send the rest of us to Mars and then hang out in Bali.

Re:Is this peak class envy?

[Jeremi]

There are plenty of real existing problems to complain about before ranting at plots from The Jetsons.

Jetsons? I thought this was the plot to Atlas Shrugged...

Re:Is this peak class envy?

[arth1]

How many sponge baths would you have to take before you were ready to come back?

That depends on who gave them to me.
Also, don't forget that one third gravity has ... possibilities.

Re:Is this peak class envy?

[BringMyShuttle]

> Mankind is on the verge of its greatest accomplishment, to be executed by the bravest and most hardworking of us.

Thanks, but it's just a web site with a bit of scripting. Though, yeah, I am quite proud of it! It'll be finished next Thursday. I appreciate your support!

Re:Is this peak class envy?

[Tablizer]

That issue is debated elsewhere in the reply pool. It may be as much about getting away from dangerous people as it is physical conditions.

Re:Is this peak class envy?

[dcw3]

There are plenty of real existing problems to complain about before ranting at plots from The Jetsons.

Jetsons? I thought this was the plot to Atlas Shrugged...

Glad I checked first...I was about to post the same....Elon Shrugged!

Re:Is this peak class envy?

[tsotha]

People with resources don't have any problem getting away from dangerous people. They can co-opt national armies, or even hire their own. They can settle in any country in the world. The idea "plutocrats" will actually be better off going to Mars is daft.

Re:Is this peak class envy?

[Tablizer]

Money may not mean much after an apocalypse. Let's see your apocalypse simulation outcome distribution.

Re:Is this peak class envy?

[tsotha]

What apocalypse?

Musk running away

[pesho]

accused Musk and other space-minded billionaires of plotting to abandon the planet to the ravages of global warming while they go to Mars to live the good life.

Seems more likely to me that Musk is going to Mars to get as far as possible from the idiot who wrote this piece and the likes of him.

Re:Musk running away

[Ian A. Shill]

It's all a big fake-out to get more people to line up with the telephone sanitizers.

accused Musk and other space-minded billionaires of plotting to abandon the planet to the ravages of global warming while they go to Mars to live the good life.

Seems more likely to me that Musk is going to Mars to get as far as possible from the idiot who wrote this piece and the likes of him.

In other news...

[mrthoughtful]

Time Magazine suggests that Elon Musk and other billionaires will abandon earth and live on the surface of Jupiter.. wait, Jupiter doesn't have a surface..

"You got to love it when idiotic journalism bad sci-fi meets" -Yoda.

The only thing I would agree on is that WW3 may well be around the corner. For some unknowably weird reason, there's a load of politicians who seem to consider that a better option than the status quo.

Re:In other news...

[KingAlanI]

Re WWIII - People with apocalyptic theology on the brain might even encourage such chaos

Stupid

[MBGMorden]

I don't think we're CAPABLE as a species of making Earth less hospitable to life than Mars.

No matter how bad things get here, it'll still be way easier to survive here (much less "live the good life") than on Mars.

Re:Stupid

[bughunter]

Exactly my reaction to TFA. He expresses the desire to spend tens or even hundreds of Gigabucks to retire on a hellishly inhospitable planet, with little likelihood of return, and their reaction is to call him privileged and accuse him of going Galt?

There are so many better places on Earth to abandon the proles and go "live the good life," without having to spend all of your fortunes on getting there.

Re:Stupid

[h33t l4x0r]

No matter how bad things get here, it'll still be way easier to survive here (much less "live the good life") than on Mars.

That depends on a lot of factors. My own personal chance of surviving the next 50 years on Earth are about the same as surviving them on Mars.

Wait a minute...

[roc97007]

Mars. ...good life... ... Mars... Good Life... MARS. ...LIVING THE GOOD LIFE. On FREAKING MARS.

Isn't Mars a WASTELAND?

Is this a really unusual definition of "good life"? Or maybe a complete misunderstanding of what Mars is like?

Re:Wait a minute...

[suutar]

They just finished watching Elysium again and assume that nobody with that much money could possibly want to go somewhere uncomfortable.

Re:Wait a minute...

[swb]

I figured that was heavily implied by this. Musk on Mars is Musk in some large and comfortable habitat, whether in orbit or on the surface, largely self-sustaining.

Idiots!

[samantha]

Musk and others like him are the only real breath of fresh air and hope that we finally do something more with space than send a few probes and telescopes up in a very very long time. That Musk would like to live on Mars eventually doesn't in the least say he is "abandoning Earth". Although personally I would be happy to get the hell away for the sniveling jerks that resent anyone that has a bit more or does a bit more than they do.

Also Musk just happens to be Chairman of the most one of the most effective solar companies on the planet and of course made electric cars a going viable reality and of course is developing better battery tech. This hardly sounds like he is "abandoning the planet".

Re:Idiots!

[Bing Tsher E]

The hero worship of Musk these days is kind of creepy.

He's spending his dot.bomb fortune that he got by foisting PayPal off on us in some interesting ways. Also spending billions of all of our tax dollars.

I, nor anybody else who doesn't slaver all over Musk are not the sniveling jerks. Slaver away, though, if it pleases you.

Also, Musk isn't a breath of fresh air. Last time I was near a perfume counter, I thought it sorta stunk.

She packed my bags last night pre-flight

[Master Moose]

Mars aint the kind of place to raise your kids

This is the stupidest thing I've ever read

[rsilvergun]

and I've been reading /. for years. The 1% will benefit handsomely from a crashing environment. The value of what resources are left will skyrocket, and as always they skim off the top. No matter how bad things get they always come out ahead. That's the definition of a ruling class. They're not going to leave and there isn't going to be a WWIII. They won't allow either of those things to happen.

Re:This is the stupidest thing I've ever read

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

The 1% will benefit handsomely from a crashing environment. [...] That's the definition of a ruling class.

To have a "ruling class" and a "the 1%", people actually need to stay in such a class system over time, otherwise the term doesn't make any sense. But, in fact, 12% of Americans will be a member of "the 1%" at one point in their life, and the majority of Americans (56%) will be a member of the top 10% of income earners. So the idea that there is a fixed group of "the 1%" that will escape to Mars is ludicrous.

Re: This is the stupidest thing I've ever read

[ljw1004]

That 12% figure is interesting. Do you have any links? Where did you read it?

Re: This is the stupidest thing I've ever read

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

http://www.nytimes.com/2014/04...

http://www.npr.org/sections/mo...

It is clear that the image of a static 1 and 99 percent is largely incorrect. The majority of Americans will experience at least one year of affluence at some point during their working careers. (This is just as true at the bottom of the income distribution scale, where 54 percent of Americans will experience poverty or near poverty at least once between the ages of 25 and 60).

This isn't exactly a secret either; this has generally been known for a long time, Hirschl and Rank just put some recent numbers on it.

Re:This is the stupidest thing I've ever read

[EdgePenguin]

Bullshit. They don't want to be lynched by angry mobs who just want something to eat. They want to be on another planet when the shit hits the fan.

We are not going to Mars...

[bobbied]

At least not in an attempt to create a thriving colony. We might maintain a scientific outpost there, but it will be temporary structures, suitable for extended stays lasting a year or two, but not equipped to be self sufficient over longer terms. It will be forever dependent on regular re-supply. There is no other possible way. Think of it as a remote space station, just harder to get to. Think of it like the south pole station, only in a place that takes a year to get to, is colder, and you cannot ever go outside. We are NOT staying there.

Why? Because Mars is a horrible place. It has no radiation shielding to speak of, so you are going to be living under ground. It's *really* cold, so cold that it's going to take a LOT of energy to keep warm enough to survive. There is no atmosphere to speak of and what IS there is useless being nearly completely carbon dioxide. It's also very dusty which wreaks havoc with solar collectors, machinery and anything that moves. It's also pretty much barren of anything useful that we could collect and easily use. No dirt suitable for growing, no water, no organic materials or things we might grow food with. There might be some liquid water in the form of bine, but it's going to be really hard to collect and need serious processing to be drinkable or usable for growing stuff.

We are NOT going there to stay. We may visit, we may stay there for extended periods, but it will be temporary.

Forget global warming

[Distan]

Forget about "escaping global warming". Earth at its worst will be better than Mars at its best.

The real benefit of moving to Mars would be to get away from earthbound governments and their desire to control everything in sight: encryption, bitcoin, guns, speech, genetics, what you drink, what you smoke, what you eat, the internet, the DMCA, the Patriot Act, and so on, and so on. Being able to jettison all the governments on earth and live self-sufficient on Mars would be highly tempting to me.

Timeline

[phantomfive]

This quote from the article made my eyes pop:

The real migration will start post-2040. Volume will drive down flight prices from tens of millions of dollars a person to $500,000. People will start companies on Mars. They’ll take their families.

Wow, what a prediction, with precision down to the decade and a dollar value.

live the good life on mars?

[hypergreatthing]

Isn't that like saying rich billionaires are living the good life on Antarctica? Who really thinks this way?

Re:live the good life on mars?

[ClickOnThis]

Isn't that like saying rich billionaires are living the good life on Antarctica? Who really thinks this way?

Living in Antarctica would be a picnic compared to living on Mars.

Amazing!

[0dugo0]

The lengths people are willing to go to evade taxes. Q. Hey tax engineer, got something new yet? A. Well, there is this rocket..

Such flaw. Much fallacious. Wow.

[BoogieChile]

Damn, that's some seriously flawed arguing you've got going there.

Escape route for the 1%. Closely followed by an illustration of the advances made towards expanding the target market "beyond the Forbes 400" and examples of families selling everything they own to move to the new world.

Question: How many Jay-Z's are going to be wanting to do that, really? Leave all the money, power, luxury behind for a precarious, spartan existence on a hostile planet billions of miles from the nearest private airport lounge?

Next: Movies, no matter how hit they are, are really, really not a reliable source for predicting the viability of anything in the real world. Doesn't matter how much attention they paid to the science advisor. If they were, they would be called documentaries and they would be show on PBS.

Third: 18th Century Holland, Spain, Portugal, France and England were not nice places to live for any of the people leaving them. That's why they left. Religious and political persecution of pretty horrific levels were the order of the day. Besides which, if the place was so nice, why were people so keen to leave?

Finally: For all these rich and powerful that are going to leave it all behind to go and attempt to survive spartan, tenuous existence on a hostile planet, who is going to be fixing their toilets? Jay-Z? At least some of the people who do the actual work are going to have to go with them.

Finally finally: If all the Trumps, Biebers, Shkrelis, Madoffs et al could all be convinced to bugger off somewhere else...sounds good to me!

Re:Such flaw. Much fallacious. Wow.

[careysub]

...

Next: Movies, no matter how hit they are, are really, really not a reliable source for predicting the viability of anything in the real world. Doesn't matter how much attention they paid to the science advisor. If they were, they would be called documentaries and they would be show on PBS.

...

Although I heartily agree with the sentiment that no movie is a documentary (unless it is a documentary, and even then...), I have a far more fundamental criticism of the fool writing for Newsweek citing The Martian as showing that living on Mars is plausible.

He utterly fails to understand what was depicted in the movie.

First, according to the movie life on Mars is one of extreme hardship and extreme, ever present danger.

So far this is quite realistic.

Further it shows that billions of dollars of hardware built back on Earth is essential for every little thing on Mars. Mark Watney cannot make anything - he can only repurpose (usually for a lower, subsistence purpose) what was already sent. The movie's vision of living on Mars provides no hope whatsoever of placing a self-supporting colony of any kind, much less a luxurious resort existence, on the Red Planet for centuries to come.

Re: Elon Musk

[Anonymous Coward]

Who makes more in an hour than you will in your useless, shitty, jealousy ridden life.

Re:Living the good life?

[HiThere]

You left out how old he'll be by the most optimistic projections of when he'll get there. And the g-stresses that will be involved in getting him there.

Perhaps he's not planning on living the good life, but having a really useful death.

Elon Musk is not going to retire on Mars

[kheldan]

He might get buried there, either shipped as a corpse or dying on the way, but it's not likely that he'd actually ever live there, it's not anywhere near as close as some people might think it is.

Re:Elon Musk is not going to retire on Mars

[thinkwaitfast]

Technically, once you break 140 years you'll live indefinitely. Or kill yourself out of boredom.

Re:Elon Musk is not going to retire on Mars

[kheldan]

I'd rather die at 70, having lived a high quality of life, than live 140 gruelling years of clinging to life for no reason than to cling to life.

Re:Self-defeating prophecy

[erice]

But if all the rich sociopaths go live on Mars, then who will be left to start the nuclear wars or perpetuate global warming here?

Their minions

Once again

[tsotha]

...accused Musk and other space-minded billionaires of plotting to abandon the planet to the ravages of global warming while they go to Mars to live the good life.

And proving, once again, J-school is mostly populated by the "math is hard" crowd.

Buh-bye!

[PopeRatzo]

It's called a "breakaway civilization" and it's not a new idea. It's been a fantasy of the elite for a long time. The only problem is they want you to pay for them doing it.

Transhumanism, it's a cookbook!

https://youtu.be/9f7wOxw4fQI

Money is the accepted measure of human worth.

[EzInKy]

If you have none, you are worthless. It boggles the mind that there exists those who don't understand this fact. If your idea is valuable someone will give you the funds to prove it so.c

Re:Money is the accepted measure of human worth.

[EzInKy]

And what do their offspring have to show for it today? I'm not saying I agree with it, nor am I saying that that is the way it should be. I'm just stating the obvious.

Re:Money is the accepted measure of human worth.

[thinkwaitfast]

I may be worthless, but I don't care. Why should I? I have a nice house, good friends and freedom to travel around the world whenever I want.

Re:Money is the accepted measure of human worth.

[Zontar The Mindless]

Neither is John Glenn, who was mentioned earlier in the thread, and who's a fairly amazing person. I'd forgot that he went into space again at age 77 until reminded by that post, went to Wikipedia to verify this, and ended up reading the entire article about him.

Re:Money is the accepted measure of human worth.

[Zontar The Mindless]

And what do their offspring have to show for it today?

The pride that comes with knowing one of your ancestors was someone who made a real difference for the good.

Re:Money is the accepted measure of human worth.

[Zontar The Mindless]

Of course--having a worthy ancestor precludes your having a job. How silly of me.

Re:Money is the accepted measure of human worth.

[david_thornley]

Alternatively, you'll start with your idea, and someone else with more resources will co-opt it and drive you out of business. Or the people who give you the funds to prove it find a neat way to dilute your stock so you wind up with pretty much nothing for your work and ingenuity. It's certainly possible to get the right idea, work hard, and score big, but having the right idea and working hard is not a guarantee that the value you add to the world nets you any significant money.

So it's boom and bust?

[rsilvergun]

assuming your stats are correct then people are cycling in and out of the top 10%. If that's true it means they do well when they're young and then everything goes to shit. At least I can't think of any reason why they'd drop out. In other words, after they're used up their quality of life goes down

Now, the real ruling class is just that: A Class. You don't drop out of that. That's why golden parachutes exist. You don't spill the blood of kings. They take care of their own. Stop kidding yourself. Google "Upward Mobility In America" sometime. When the top 3 results stop being about how it's a myth we'll talk.

Re:So it's boom and bust?

[jedidiah]

Upward mobility is no myth. Some of us have experienced it firsthand.

Although it tends to be much more common with the newcomers. They tend to have less emotional baggage dragging them down and haven't been indoctrinated into the usual liberal excuses for not trying to fend for yourself.

THAT right there is why we should never shut out immigrants. They make up for the fat entitled slobs that blame everyone else for their own shortcomings.

Re:So it's boom and bust?

[NostalgiaForInfinity]

If that's true it means they do well when they're young and then everything goes to shit. At least I can't think of any reason why they'd drop out. In other words, after they're used up their quality of life goes down

No, in fact, it's the exact opposite: incomes go up as people get older. It should also be obvious why: as people get older, they gain more experience and advance in their careers, so they get salary raises. You have to be utterly disconnected from economic life not to understand such a basic fact. http://tinyurl.com/pebklkm

Now, the real ruling class is just that: A Class. You don't drop out of that.

True. But the argument progressives and people like Sanders make is that "the 1%" actually constitute "the ruling class", that the problem is money, and that the problem can be fixed by redistribution and taxation. That argument is obviously bullshit given the intragenerational income mobility we see.

The US may or may not have some other form of "ruling class" that isn't rooted in money. You're welcome to make an argument for that. There certainly are such ruling classes in Europe, in countries with much more economic equality and higher relative upward mobility.

Google "Upward Mobility In America" sometime. When the top 3 results stop being about how it's a myth we'll talk.

I did better: I immigrated to the US and experienced upward mobility that people in other countries can only dream of. People like you strike me as whiny, greedy, and ignorant because you simply lack any appreciation of how well the US works.

The statistics that people cite on intergenerational mobility and comparing it between countries are bullshit; they are based on relative mobility, and that's high in countries with government-imposed equality, for all the wrong reasons.

Re:So it's boom and bust?

[thinkwaitfast]

Haha. That's exactly what my girlfriend used to tell me. She's a teacher and experienced it first hand. Poor immigrants come, live 5 families to a room, work hard, start a business, make a better life. Have kids who look around wondering why they have to work and complain about not having Porches then join a gang and threaten to turn in parents to immigration if forced to do homework.

Re:So it's boom and bust?

[ahodgson]

No it's more that people accumulate assets over time and also make more money later in their careers than earlier.

But the real ruling class is more like the .1%. You don't get to join that class unless you're a very successful entrepreneur.

Re:So it's boom and bust?

[Anonymous Coward]

Upward mobility is no myth. Some of us have experienced it firsthand.

The myth is that everyone who works hard will succeed. What really happens is that everyone who works hard might succeed if they have a good dose of luck to supplement the hard work.

And for all the rhetoric, large parts of Europe have more of the upward mobility than USA.

Re:So it's boom and bust?

[Anonymous Coward]

Upward mobility is no myth. Some of us have experienced it firsthand.

That it exists is no myth, but possibility to move from one social class to another is typically called social mobility in studies.
The conclusion tends to be the same. The amount of social mobility is far lower in the US than compared to for example the Nordic countries.
That doesn't mean that you can't transition, just that it is much harder to get rich by honest work in the US compared to other places.

Re:So it's boom and bust?

[edtice1559]

Sure. But if you don't work hard it's very likely that you will succeed. Therefore, it makes sense to work hard. When somebody isn't working hard, they aren't acting in their best interest and it's usually obvious to everyone but them. Of course there may be a lot of reasons that the person isn't working hard. Discouraged, disillusioned. Especially since the likelihood of upward mobility through hard work is decreasing. However, what we see lately is people arguing for solutions that don't involve hard work. Those ideas are doomed to failure.

Re:So it's boom and bust?

[ahodgson]

You joke but obviously there's no clear line. It is true though that the top .1% own something like 23% of all wealth in the US. The top 1% own 34%. And the top 20% own 85% of everything. Somewhere in there is the "ruling class". I'm thinking it's closer to the guys who can get Obama or Yellen on the phone when they call and who own large yachts than it is your average company VP, though.

Lots of people get into the top 20%, at least for a while. I am, even, at just a normal wage-slave job, and I certainly don't rule anything.

A very brief retirement, Elon

[macsimcon]

If the radiation doesn’t kill you, the perchlorates will. If the perchlorates don’t kill you, the lack of food will. If the lack of food doesn’t kill you, the low gravity will weaken your muscles and bones to the point that return to Earth will be impossibleand you’ll still die on Mars.

My bet: the trip to Mars will last longer than you will on the Martian surface.

Sorry Elon, but it would make more sense to build floating colonies on Venus than to colonize Mars.

Re:Asimov

[turbidostato]

"That's roughly what my fellow Europeans said when I emigrated to the US. They were wrong."

Did you emigrate in the late XVI century? If so, your fellow Europeans were right; if not, you are not talking even remotely about the same thing.

Re:Living the good life?

[Gavagai80]

John Glenn made it to space at age 77, so I don't think the g-forces are really that much of an issue. In fact the low gravity of the destination could help the mobility and self-sufficiency of old people and make falls less serious.

So much cynicism

[KingAlanI]

So much cynicism in that article, any tech is expensive when starting out

If you can live on Mars you can live anywhere.

[dsmatthews9379]

It is a simple principle so I don't see why people have such a problem factoring it into their thinking, the technologies required to travel to Mars in large numbers, and then settle there on a permanent and self-sustaining basis, would allow you to live anywhere including in a completely artificial space habitat or deep within the Moon. It is silly to assume that people living on Mars would live on the surface, there is no benefit to doing so and many reasons why you would not. I doubt they would bother with solar power either, it will need to wait until compact fusion power is possible. Combine large artificial caves full of plants with living spaces that have wall sized 3D screens showing real or hyper-realistic rendered views and people would not have any need to spend time "outside", and that would include people on some theoretic future Earth that was so bad that people would risk their lives to abandon it and travel to Mars. The real reason people would flee to Mars is if it offered a better society that was not hobbled by the religions, traditions and political systems of Earth, it would not be primarily a elite based on wealth, it would be a hyper rational intellectual elite that would rather move on than argue with the idiots back home on Earth.

"the good life"

[NicknameUnavailable]

Mars will just be Musk's private slave labor camp with no oversight and every system controlled by himself. Just look at how the runs Tesla and SpaceX on the ground - they're engineer meat-grinders people only go to for the sake of getting those names on their resume.

"good life" on mars...

[Anonymous Coward]

Anyone who thinks Mars will provide "good life" within the foreseeable future (few hundred years) is a clueless idiot.

It is a frozen wasteland with hardly any atmosphere. Think Antarctica, with the added drawback of requiring a pressure suit to go outside and some fairly harsh needs for the living space. With seriously hardcore logistical problems for anything other than bunch of raw materials - for which you need industrial capability to access - which all needs to be imported.

Earth, even after a massive disaster (natural or man-made) that would kill off large percentage of people, would be a paradise in comparison.

Re:"good life" on mars...

[sabbede]

My thoughts exactly! The "pioneer life'' is incredibly hard and mostly lethal, even on a habitable planet.

Mars is a Harsh Master

[nastyphil]

TANSTAAFL

Then why go?

[BringMyShuttle]

You can live in my basement and have all those things except the gravity. Add some more concrete and you can do it even if there is WWIII. Space radiation will the picking holes in Musk's DNA while you'll be safe and sound living out your dream... in my basement.

Re:Then why go?

[BringMyShuttle]

Change of scenery?

No economic interest

[HuguesT]

Going to Mars sounds nice, but there doesn't seem to be anything of note to mine or exploit there that would make it economically viable. It is not a lifeboat for humanity in the short run either because it would require such a continual feed of stuff from Earth to be survivable.

If we wanted a humanity lifeboat, It would be easier, cheaper, safer and more effective to build a giant, self-sustained fallout shelter under the ice of Antarctica than going to Mars. We are not doing that either.

Mars and "good life"?

[Ihlosi]

All the billions in the world can't make a trip to and staying on Mars even anywhere near "good life". Especially if the colonists can't rely on imports from Earth.

Maybe after a couple of hundred years, once the colonys infrastructure has expanded enough to allow for some luxury in addition to simple survival.

Re:Neat idea !

[sabbede]

PayPal broke the economy?

Mars needs some global warming

[Theovon]

So what we need to do is capture a ton of the excess CO2 in Earth’s atmosphere and transport it to Mars. This will warm the planet and substantially aid in teraforming. (Too bad this idea is totally impractical.)

Re:Mars needs some global warming

[david_thornley]

All you need is a sufficiently large vacuum cleaner and the code for the planetary defense shield.

Re:Living the good life?

[I'm New Around Here]

In fact the low gravity of the destination could help the mobility and self-sufficiency of old people and make falls less serious.

"Hello, I've fallen and bounced right back up."

Missing the point

[EdgePenguin]

Its not about air, or temperature, or soil, its about people.

What Mars gets you is a place that is entirely isolated from the poor folks, from politicians who might restrain you or tax you - you can't even access the Internet as we know it from Mars due to radio lag. Its a societal fresh start.

People making your arguments often say things like "why not colonise the Gobi desert? its much nicer than Mars". Thats actually easy to answer - the Gobi desert is (mostly I think) in China, and I don't want to live under the Chinese government. To have a societal clean slate, you need to go far and you need to live under harsh conditions.

Oh what a loss...

[schizrade4954]

[BUGS BUNNY] Bon Voy-ah-gee! [/BUGS BUNNY]

Antarctica would be cheaper

[cat_jesus]

Antarctica or other remote pole locations would be much cheaper and have better amenities while still being out of reach of the horde of humanity. Personally I think learning to live in space is a better answer than Mars. The resources of the asteroid belt and the moon are enough to sustain a sufficiently large and technologically advanced civilization. We need to solve some technical issues and work on generating a critical mass of people so that we can flourish in space. Probably won't happen for a very long time. Hundreds of years perhaps.

backup

[Mirar]

...who cares, given that we have a backup of life?
It's not like their "good life" is making it worse here. (Quite the opposite, given investment on earth.)

and the Americas were colonized by British nobles

[j2.718ff]

From the article:

“It’s not going to be a vacation jaunt,” Musk said in interviews. “It’s going to be saving up all your money and selling all your stuff, like when people moved to the early American colonies.”

This seems like a fair comparison. Yet the author or the article seems to ignore it, and assumes only the rich will go to Mars. Was it European nobility who went to America in search of a better life? Somehow the author seems under the impression that 40 years from now, Mars will be a better place to live than Earth. This is way too optimistic about our colonization and terraforming abilities, and much too pessimistic of our ability to prevent Earth from completely self-destructing in the short term.

And the thing is, if things do ever go wrong on Earth, we as a species had better have colonies in places elsewhere, otherwise we may die out. Putting all our eggs in one basket might make us more careful of that particular basket, but it is not a guarantee that we won't drop that basket.

They're not going to Mars...you are.

[LongArcher]

Maybe the rich will stay on Earth and the poor will go to Mars, similar to forced migration of 162,000 convicts to the British penal colonies in Australia from 1788 to 1868. Nothing more than an exaggeration? The Australian dialect, English (AU), is considered to be a direct derivation of English Cockney. Specifically, many Australians may trace their lineage to those born within earshot of Bow Bells as well as the bells of St Mary-le-Bow in the eastern Cheapside district of the City of London. Why? Because the United Kingdom, more so England, suffered from the effects of rampant overpopulation, unemployment, poverty, pollution, crime (of course), social unrest, etc. When the American Colonies declared their independence, the British had to find an alternative dumping site for those who were considered undesirable based on class, creed, lineage, political affiliation, speech, conduct, etc. In Britain circa 1750, the terrain of Australia was considered unfit for human habitation; thus, it was deemed an ideal repository for undesirable humans. Similarly, Mars must first be terraformed, which is unavoidably labor-intensive. If you're going to make an omelet, you have to break a few eggs. I for one welcome our new Terran overlords.

why live there

[GrimShady]

I always wondered why people would consider living there. You really wont be able to live on the surface so you will be stuck indoors or in sealed caves (this is the foundation to just about every plausible colony plan) and basically no useful magnosphere to speak of.

To me this is the same as living on a space station, the moon or underwater. All of these are much cheaper, easier and safer. What am I missing? What does mars offer outside of just being "interesting"?

Re:Asimov

[david_thornley]

Why? Wasn't there air in the Americas in the late XVI century? Otherwise, it doesn't sound comparable.

No-child policy

[Crowd Computing]

Given the universality of gravity on earth it is very unlikely that there is a considerable difference in viability in low gravity between individuals, unlike for example disease resistance.

The slight differences are enough material for evolution to work on, what more artificial selection. The main problem I see with the latter approach is how to sell process to the population. If you think China's fairly egalitarian one-child policy is cruel, then a no-child policy would be way more cruel for the unfortunate majority whose set of genes must be culled. I can just imagine the jealousy a childless couple would feel for a neighbor authorized to have six children.

Mars is not a backup

[Crowd Computing]

The "life-extinguishing" events that have happened thus far in Earth's natural history can be survived by building a sufficient number of nuclear bunkers and similar fortified constructions in widely dispersed locations around the world. No nuclear bunker could withstand a direct impact from the asteroid that wiped out most of the dinosaurs but there would be survivors in shelters hundreds or thousands of miles away. The same thing goes for planet-wide volcanism, which can be survived by building from from the edges of the continental plates and using biohazard-quality air filters against the toxic emissions.

The only disaster for which Mars could be a planetary backup plan have not occurred since the appearance of the first microbes, a collision with another planet. A collision between Earth and another planet is theorized to have produced the moon but that took place way before the birth of life.

Escape Global warming?

[pebear]

So these guys want to escape global warming to live in a place that is more similar to living in Antarctica than anywhere else on earth? Having grown up in CT and living in New England most all my life, I"m really getting sick of the winters here so why would I want to board a space ship and head out to a lifeless cold, harsh and all but dead planet? I would rather move to South Carolina, Georgia, or Florida personally....