First SpaceX Missions To Mars: 'Dangerous and Probably People Will Die' (arstechnica.com)

I would ... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-13 13:13 · Score: 5, Insightful

Go.
At the very least, death or not, it would be interesting. Earth is getting boring.

Re:I would ... by pellik · 2016-06-13 13:19 · Score: 5, Funny

You could be the first to post there, too.
Re:I would ... by wierd_w · 2016-06-13 13:24 · Score: 1, Interesting

..Need to see the mission charter, and a number of other things first.
History is awash in inescapable schemes like "company stores."
If any part of Musk's plan involves indenturement, or stakeholder value increase, and does not come out upfront say that the one and only purpose is colonization, for the sake of colonization, it needs to be treated with revulsion and derision.
The former is how you secure slaves in space based manufacturing.
The latter is a boondoggle, but has a chance of producing a free, autonomous colony.
Re:I would ... by wierd_w · 2016-06-13 13:53 · Score: 2

Those that ignore history are doomed to repeat it.
Indenturement was the defacto way for "ordinary" people to secure passage to "the new world" in the days of sailing ships.
Given the absurd cost per kilogram of weight to put something into orbit, you either need a very deep set of pockets of a very idealist patron, or you need a business plan that seeks to "extract value" at every point in the mission's planning. It is much cheaper to produce more humans in space than it is to ship them off the ground, and multinationals have no qualms about abusing international labor laws to achieve sweatshop/slave labor conditions for increased profits right now on Earth. The "nonregulated" nature of a space stationed human population for labor exploitation would simply be too much to pass up.
Unless of course, you dont see any kind of space based manufacture happening at all, and see the whole thing as a boondoggle that can do nothing but fail spectacularly without constant support efforts from Earth-- in which case, I would say you spend too much time in your echo chamber.
Re:I would ... by narf0708 · 2016-06-13 14:03 · Score: 2

If any part of Musk's plan involves indenturement, or stakeholder value increase, and does not come out upfront say that the one and only purpose is colonization, for the sake of colonization, it needs to be treated with revulsion and derision.
The former is how you secure slaves in space based manufacturing.
Why would anyone want space slaves for manufacturing when they could use industrial equipment and manufacturing robots that are far cheaper than having to supply expensive food/water/air/medical/misc to maintain slaves? There just isn't any advantage to slavery anymore, and especially not when you get into space.

--
"Violence is not the answer. Violence is the question. The answer is yes."
Re:I would ... by 110010001000 · 2016-06-13 14:03 · Score: 2

Well as a space nutter I am sure you see space based manufacturing as totally viable of course. And of course it will be done by nubile "space slaves". I saw that episode on Star Trek too.
Re:I would ... by MobSwatter · 2016-06-13 14:04 · Score: 2

Go.
At the very least, death or not, it would be interesting. Earth is getting boring.
There was another program that had that wrapped up all nice and neat, included fast food and hookers on the moon, building larger craft in 1/3 earth gravity, He3 used as a much better fuel. But they screwed it all up in '63 over a quick theft of 4-6 million in north Tahoe on a repeat crime originally involving an underground river plug beneath Virginia City, NV and a pretty screwed up definition of Freemason. If it ever happens it will be the Russky's that do it, we have to buy our heavy lift rockets from them now because we are too retarded to make them ourselves,
Re:I would ... by Rei · 2016-06-13 14:17 · Score: 2

What he's calling ridiculous is indeed the concept of any profitable space-based manufacture any time soon. Any colonists are going to be spending most of their time doing their best to, quite simply, not die. Nextmost they'll be spending their time collecting scientific data, which is by far the most "valuable" thing they could produce, given that interplanetary missions to collect such data run from the upper tens of millions to the lower billions. Lastly, from a risk-reward benefit you present an absurdity. The possible reward of (immensely dubious) space-based manufacturing for the negative consequences of life in prison for engaging in slave trafficking? I mean, really?
Anyway, Musk's statement has been heard before. And it's the right call. Here's the apocryphal ad for one of Shackleton's Antarctic missions:

Men wanted for hazardous journey. Low wages, bitter cold, long hours of complete darkness. Safe return doubtful. Honour and recognition in event of success.
While it's been questioned whether the ad ever actually was real, it's been lauded as one of the most brilliant pieces of advertising of all time - both attracting risk-takers while weeding out those who would be unlikely to manage the journey.

--
Monkeywrench Ex Machina.
Re:I would ... by thinkwaitfast · 2016-06-13 14:18 · Score: 1

Thanks to google, everyone will be remembered by humanity forever.
Re:I would ... by oakgrove · 2016-06-13 14:19 · Score: 2

First post from Mars would probably end up being a GNAA troll. Which would be kind of awesome I guess.

--
The soylentnews experiment has been a dismal failure.
Re:I would ... by Rei · 2016-06-13 14:23 · Score: 5, Interesting

I guess the one for Mars for today would read:

Seeking candidates for hazardous journey. No pay, dangerous radiation, real possibility of death by rapid decompression. Safe return depends on several hundred thousand parts working as designed. Honour and recognition in the event of success. Tons of Youtube hits in event of failure.

--
Monkeywrench Ex Machina.
Re:I would ... by wierd_w · 2016-06-13 14:25 · Score: 2

who said anything about star trek? I sure didnt.
I was instead looking at the historical parallels with european colonization of north and south america. There are resources that can be effectively processed on mars, iron being one of them. Sending the refining and smelting equipment there, then the people to operate it, would go a very long way to establishing space based manufacture.
Why attempt to establish space based manufacture?
I remind you, sending goods back to Earth is not a strict necessity. Money is, by and large, a mostly electronic thing these days, and simply having more market outside of earth's immediate ecommerce zone stands to be very profitable. It is very cheap to beam bits into orbit and back. To have this increased market potential, you need self sustaining human settlements. That means space based manufacture.
Also, services rendered by space based populations can drastically undercut the costs of launch from earth in many circumstances. Say for instance, ESA wants to send a science probe to the kuipier belt. To do that from earth requires a very big and heavy rocket. You need a much smaller rocket to launch from mars. Assuming you can beam the plans for the probe to mars (cheaply and reliably), have it manufactured there, and launched from there, you can get the contract from the ESA on earth, and profit from having space based manufacture without ever having to drop any physical payloads on earth.
There is a shitload of money to be made by being the first to capture the satelite and probe market via space based manufacture.
No nubile green sex slaves required, just the iphone factory kind.
Re:I would ... by wierd_w · 2016-06-13 14:44 · Score: 1, Informative

Did you even fucking read what I wrote before responding, idiot?
Here, i will say it again, with big assed capital letters this time, so you cant possibly miss it.
YOU DO **NOT** NEED TO SEND THINGS BACK TO EARTH TO PROFIT FROM SPACE BASED MANUFACTURING.
That was the entire thrust in the prior post-- and your rebuttle? what are you illiterate or something? Maybe just lazy? WTF man!
The gravity on mars is roughly 1/3 that of Earths. That means for the same rocket, you and loft 3X as much mass.
Once a good manufacturing infrastructure is up and running, you can drive earth based launch services for anything other than transporting people out of business.
That's how you make money with it idiot. The same way that India is killing US IT with offshored call centers.
Re:I would ... by wierd_w · 2016-06-13 15:17 · Score: 5, Interesting

This may come as a bit of a shock to you, but I have worked (and now, am actively working) in aerospace manufacturing.
Smelting is energy intensive, that I will give you. The cold as a witch's tit surface conditions will present additional obstacles. On the flipside, the lack of free oxygen in the atmosphere will be very beneficial to producing quality metal stock materials.
To me, the ovious road to success looks like this:
Big reusable heavy transport ship is constructed in Lunar orbit, uses water gel as rad sheilding. It has limited permanent crew, and is on a permanent transfer orbit itinerary. It carries material mined on the moon, and later, humans sourced from earth, to martian orbit.
Prefab command and control centers are established on either phobos of demos. Limited human crews are stationed there, and resupplied regularly by the heavy transport. These stations make use of the asteroid bodies as radiation sheilding for their limited crews, and make use of the short turnaround time for communication with the martian surface. They control remote drone construction robots on the martian surface, dropped there by the heavy transport.
This is how the martian habitats are constructed and covered in dirt. No humans with shovels. That's absurd.
Once the initial habitat construction is completed, limited human crews are established, and supplied by the heavy transport. Minimal light fabrication (nothing more complicated than a small manual milling machine, or a shopclass size smelter) equipment gets dropped for fault tolerance. Construction of heavier facilities for heavy industrial applications occurs.
Once the raw structures are in place, heavy industry payloads are dropped and installed.
THEN heavy industry and permanent self-sufficiency can be discussed.
And no, idiot. The likening to Indian call centers is an analogy. It would have more in common with a Foxconn factory city, except the product is sent into space cheaply, not sent to earth.
But feel free to criticize things you dont understand, bask in your own delusions of gandure, plug your ears, and pretend that people wanting to accomplish such a goal are "space nutters", and other just idiocy. You have already demonstrated that you cant even be bothered to read other people's posts before replying with idiocy to them. The proof is in the pudding on that one.
Re:I would ... by Imrik · 2016-06-13 15:50 · Score: 1

I doubt the initial ones would have any provision for safe return.
Re:I would ... by Imrik · 2016-06-13 15:53 · Score: 1

Slaves are capable of making decisions on unexpected events as they occur rather than ten minutes to an hour after they occur.
Re:I would ... by Khyber · 2016-06-13 16:07 · Score: 1

" How are you going to build that rocket on Mars to "loft 3x as much mass"?"
Got news for you. Mars is 1 order of magnitude smaller than Earth in mass, and the gravity is correspondingly lower. You could lift 3x payload off Mars for relatively the same fuel cost as 1X payload on Earth

--
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Re:I would ... by wierd_w · 2016-06-13 16:12 · Score: 1

bwahahaha.
I mean. Have you not paid attention to the suicide nets in Foxconn's factory city?
What else do you call it, when you are told to meet (or exceed) quota, or you wont be getting a resupply pod?
Who is going to sue? In what jurisdiction? Can Tim Cook be held legally liable for the conditions in China?
Dont be naive. Slavery is very much alive and well.
Re:I would ... by Opportunist · 2016-06-13 17:40 · Score: 2

And if I have to be remembered at all, it should not be as "the idiot who thought that Musk would put him on Mars for free".

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:I would ... by CrimsonAvenger · 2016-06-13 21:44 · Score: 2

The gravity on mars is roughly 1/3 that of Earths. That means for the same rocket, you and loft 3X as much mass.
Quick, back of the envelope calculations suggest that you get more like four times the mass to Mars escape speed for a rocket capable of reaching Earth escape speed.
And this ignores the relative advantage of Mars' two ready-made space stations (Phobos and Deimos) for micro-G manufacturing, launching, etc.
IOW, I agree with you in the main. The only real question (in the long run) is whether the space-based manufacturing gets going on Luna or Mars first....

--

"I do not agree with what you say, but I will defend to the death your right to say it"
Re:I would ... by geekmux · 2016-06-13 22:17 · Score: 2

If we humans cannot seem to foresee a future without robots and AI taking over our jobs and lives, I have no fucking idea how the hell you assume we meat-sacks should or would be the ones colonizing jack-shit in the future. Mining for metals? Electronics fabrication ala Foxconn? That's not exactly some insane complexity beyond programming machines to go do within the next decade or two, on-planet or off.
We looked to discover the New World a few hundred years ago, and the reasons were far more justified than this fuck-it-why-not mentality about Mars. Discovering another part of a living planet sounds a hell of a lot more promising than figuring out yet another way to make product "cheaply". Even our reasons for running out of precious metals on this planet are fucking pathetic as we hand a 9-year old a cell phone to keep for life. Want to explore space so bad on a dead planet? I challenge humans to prove we've got our shit straight enough to get back to our own fucking moon first, after we successfully escape and not die in our own man-made asteroid belt of space trash.
Re:I would ... by iris-n · 2016-06-13 22:18 · Score: 1

I'm ok with your argument, but I question your wisdom in writing a detailed answer to someone who does not even read your posts.

--
entropy happens
Re:I would ... by dcw3 · 2016-06-13 22:59 · Score: 1

Did they sign contracts? What court would uphold a contract such as that? How many additional volunteers for Mars would sign up after the shitstorm hit the media?

--
Just another day in Paradise
Re:I would ... by dcw3 · 2016-06-13 23:02 · Score: 1

If the chimp population is in any danger or if the chances of the mission being a catastrophic failure are too high, you could send a bunch of niggers instead.

Ah, so you're a volunteer then.

--
Just another day in Paradise
Re:I would ... by Ol+Olsoc · 2016-06-14 01:24 · Score: 1

nubile "space slaves"
And thousands of slashdotters are thinking of venturing from their mother's basements.

--
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Re:I would ... by drsquare · 2016-06-14 01:31 · Score: 1

He who is bored of Earth is bored of life. There's little you can do on Mars that you can't do on Earth. Perhaps you could practice by living in a shed in the Antarctic or the Sahara for 30 years.
Re:I would ... by Immerman · 2016-06-14 01:57 · Score: 1

Who needs contracts? I'm fairly certain indenture has been illegal for a long time in the US anyway, but on Mars? Who has jurisdiction? Maybe some UN courts might make a half-hearted attempt to assert jurisdiction, but most of the space-capable nations have signed on to treaties specifically banning them from laying nationalistic claims to celestial territory, so will have no claim to jurisdiction.
You will be completely at the mercy of the Mars colony courts - if it's a democratic colony that may work out for you. If it's a kingdom... well, better hope the king thinks workers have rights.

--
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Re:I would ... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-14 01:59 · Score: 1

Why not Venus?
Re:I would ... by Rei · 2016-06-14 02:46 · Score: 2

This is how the martian habitats are constructed and covered in dirt. No humans with shovels. That's absurd.
Of course, that's absurd. But high throughput nuclear powered Martian bobcats, hey, those are a dime a dozen.
Everything you wrote is like this, as if TRL is some sort of irrelevant factor, rather than being the most critical, expensive, and slow aspect of space mission development.

--
Monkeywrench Ex Machina.
Re:I would ... by MobSwatter · 2016-06-14 03:18 · Score: 1

Nah, they should send chimps first.
If the chimp population is in any danger or if the chances of the mission being a catastrophic failure are too high, you could send a bunch of niggers instead. They aren't as smart and you'd have to weigh down the ship with their hair butter and what not but they are vertebrates and we have plenty of them, so hey, not bad.
The cross-dresser loving chimp in the Whitehouse certainly didn't help matters much in knocking over NASA for $18B to bring in all his bomb making buddies from Syria so he could stage an event to call upon martial law to stop the election, perhaps he is trying to break into the banana storage, either that or the banksters have him trained pretty good. Anyway that program I was talking about I am have offered to Putin to build out under the Russian Federation, leaving this week. With aerospace in the US being privatized and none of the players on it are working together they really aren't going to get anywhere, on top of that they are all building off the framework of a failed program that ended killing teachers and failing a reconnaissance mission with the really big gas can and a glider strapped to it, the space program in the US has been nothing but a hand job for a long time now so there's no loss me going over there to do what my grandfather was supposed to do here.
Re:I would ... by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-14 03:36 · Score: 1

It is much cheaper to produce more humans in space than it is to ship them off the ground
Actually, we really don't know that this is true. Empirical study is required. As a bonus you'll probably attract a lot more investment dollars if the plan was to have a space-orgy (for science, of course).
Re:I would ... by ultranova · 2016-06-14 04:09 · Score: 1

He who is bored of Earth is bored of life. There's little you can do on Mars that you can't do on Earth.

They could whine about being bored on Mars rather than on Slashdot. You have to admit that that's more impressive.

--
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Re:I would ... by Khyber · 2016-06-14 04:27 · Score: 2

Earth Mass: 5.98 x 10^24 kg
Mars Mass: 6.42 x 10^23 kg
ONE ORDER OF MAGNITUDE, AS NOTED BY EXPONENT.
Do you even basic fucking math, son?

--
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Re:I would ... by LoLobey · 2016-06-14 05:02 · Score: 1

Go. ... Earth is getting boring.
You're doing it wrong.

--
We have nothing to fear but fear itself! And Spiders!
Re:I would ... by Hognoxious · 2016-06-14 05:27 · Score: 1

At least death would bring relief from all the Elon Musk hype.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:I would ... by Hognoxious · 2016-06-14 05:44 · Score: 1

manufacturing robots that are far cheaper than having to supply expensive food/water/air/medical/misc to maintain slaves?

Define them as contractors, then you don't have to pay for the medical.

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:I would ... by dcw3 · 2016-06-14 06:49 · Score: 1

Who has jurisdiction over a company with a presence in their country? Well, quite simply if it's a company in the U.S., then the U.S. can easily prosecute, as could any other country with a presence. It's NOT rocket science. The U.S. already does this with regards to U.S. based companies dealings outside of the U.S. Simple example, it's illegal for a U.S. based company to be involved in bribing foreign officials in other countries, even if it's not illegal within that country. As for Martian courts, that's a long way down the road.

--
Just another day in Paradise
Re:I would ... by Immerman · 2016-06-14 07:18 · Score: 1

How long do you suppose Mars,LLC. would remain a US company, if it decided US Laws were cramping it's style? "Jurisdiction shopping" is hardly a new concept for large corporations. Plenty of tidbit-sized nations on Earth that would love to be the on-paper headquarters for the largest off-earth infrastructure company in the solar system. Assuming Mars, LLC even wanted to be formally recognized on Earth. It's not like anyone is going to interfere with the stockholders' other, Earth-based holdings over a little thing like slavery, the precedent would bring international commerce to its knees,

--
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Re:I would ... by dcw3 · 2016-06-14 07:30 · Score: 1

You really want to pick at this for some stupid reason.
http://lmgtfy.com/?q=internati...

--
Just another day in Paradise
Re:I would ... by Coren22 · 2016-06-14 07:57 · Score: 1

This sounds like a joke, but in the case it isn't, do you have any links? I would love to read what they had.

--
APK likes to ask for responses to the same things over and over. Maybe he just likes the responses?
Re:I would ... by MobSwatter · 2016-06-14 11:09 · Score: 1

This sounds like a joke, but in the case it isn't, do you have any links? I would love to read what they had.
It was the space program that was in effect before Johnson gutted it to turn the SR-71 into a bomber and the mafia started the rockets or jets jingle to try and get the country over a presidential assassination, Johnson actually did warn that there were guys doing absolute secret stuff after they took out JFK but that went unheard. Turning Blackbird into a bomber didn't happen, Jack Branham (Radar Man), wouldn't let them do it. OXCART was a space program that was building reconnaissance aircraft for the CIA and was intended to do that until satellites took over recon and then was supposed to be moved into NASA. Great uncle Jack Branham kept the program on the down low in USAF after he cancelled CIA SR until he let NASA take a look at it but they had already begun fabrication of the shuttle airframe, after that happened knowledge of it's existence began to circulate in the open. Very little about what happened back then out in the open and we lost my grandfather which is what ended the program in the CIA. This was per him in 1992 when I got to meet him after they had begun to wind down the program. RIP Jack Branham '96
Here's a FOIA doc on it: http://www.foia.cia.gov/sites/...
My great uncle went by his handle behind everything, dude was a ghost so no there isn't going to be much out there and I have recently released information as to what was really behind the loss of my grandfather and it didn't have anything to do with the JFK hit, it was a repeat crime by the mafia. There isn't any documentation on it but you can go see for yourself in Virginia City there are museums and one of them has stairs that go down to the right, there are two underground river plugs there, one goes to Tahoe and the other goes to Pyramid lake north of Reno, my great grandfathers initials are on the one that goes to Tahoe and that happened a half century before we lost my grandfather on north Tahoe. Lost my father in 2013 so he isn't here to say 'shh' anymore like he did back in '92 at my great uncles place in Wisconsin which was the last I spoke of it, I am not bound by the national security apparatus so I get to talk about it.
Re:I would ... by pontoffel · 2016-06-14 12:14 · Score: 1

It may be a good idea to scatter weapons, ammunition, and maybe some blue potions and green helmet things around the Phobos or Deimos centers in case there's a demon invasion
Re:I would ... by Khyber · 2016-06-14 12:23 · Score: 1

Try doing the math all the way through.
I already have. So have other people here.
Deuces.

--
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Re:I would ... by Midas+Beurling · 2016-06-14 16:53 · Score: 1

> To me, the ovious road to success looks like this ...
"Success" for public funding should be defined as *progress in addressing our pressing and practical problems here on Earth in the foreseeable future*.
By this measure no mission to Mars in the foreseeable future would represent "success" for public funding.
Re:I would ... by stealth_finger · 2016-06-14 22:29 · Score: 1

" How are you going to build that rocket on Mars to "loft 3x as much mass"?"
Got news for you. Mars is 1 order of magnitude smaller than Earth in mass, and the gravity is correspondingly lower. You could lift 3x payload off Mars for relatively the same fuel cost as 1X payload on Earth
Right, so you just repeated the statement he asked the question of. Nice one. So now that we've established you can lift 3 times the mass. How are you going to build the rocket?

--
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Re: I would ... by spkay31 · 2016-06-15 04:30 · Score: 1

Earth is boring..... And a planet with almost no atmosphere, no water and no life would be "exciting"?
Re:I would ... by david_thornley · 2016-06-15 05:59 · Score: 1

A Venus colony on the surface would die horribly. It's at least possible to establish one high in the atmosphere. A Mars colony would be on the surface. Therefore, it's a heck of a lot easier to mine for materials on Mars than on Venus.

--
"When you have eliminated the unacceptable, whatever is left, however improbable, must be the truthiness" - Holmes
Re:I would ... by Khyber · 2016-06-15 10:31 · Score: 1

I see you don't have the mental faculty to do all of the required math, so all you can do with your limited mental capability is throw insults.
Quite entertaining!

--
Still waiting on Serviscope_minor to wake up to fucking reality and realize that Jessica Price isn't going to fuck him.
Re:I would ... by Rexdude · 2016-06-22 20:55 · Score: 1

The original ad - was it for Robert Scott's South Pole expedition?

--
"..One hosts to look them up, one DNS to find them, and in the darkness BIND them."

"Probably"? by mark-t · 2016-06-13 13:21 · Score: 4, Informative

Nice understatement there fella.

This isn't like the moon... which is at least theoretically close enough that it is at least technologically feasible to orchestrate a rescue mission to bring people home if things go awry, if such provisions are at least planned for... certainly getting people back to earth safely (or sending more supples up) before they starve to death if food supplies were suddenly lost, for example. Mars is, to put it quite bluntly, a fucking ONE WAY TRIP.

Until we have the technology to get to mars in a matter of only a few days or less, I predict that every manned mission to mars that we attempt will have a 100% fatality rate. It is suicide to go there... plain and simple.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'

Re:"Probably"? by TheGratefulNet · 2016-06-13 13:25 · Score: 5, Funny

I want to live long enough to see us do fly-bys over the surface of mars, scaring the locals and then having a radio show written about us.
once that happens, I can die a happy man.

--

--
"It is now safe to switch off your computer."
Re:"Probably"? by oic0 · 2016-06-13 13:38 · Score: 1

You are going to die anyway. Wouldn't it be nice to be remembered in a few hundred years instead of fading away into nothingness? Some people think so, and they are more than willing to die trying to get to mars.
Re:"Probably"? by mark-t · 2016-06-13 13:38 · Score: 1

So do I, to be perfectly honest.
But I can plainly see that where we are now, technologically.... we are just not there yet. Those considering this need to completely rethink propulsion and come up with a plan for getting people not only there, but home.... safely and expediently, in time scales measured in hours or a few days at most... not weeks, and certainly not months. Otherwise, any rocket we send them up in may as well be their tomb.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Re:"Probably"? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-13 13:43 · Score: 2, Insightful

People will remember Musk and the leader of the expedition, that's about it.
Whom do you remember from the colonization of America? Who laid the first road? Who built the first house?
Re:"Probably"? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-13 13:53 · Score: 1

better to be a small part of something than a big pile of nothing
Re:"Probably"? by WrongMonkey · 2016-06-13 13:55 · Score: 1

You still fade away into nothingness. Lots of folks died exploring and colonizing the Americas. Those generally aren't the ones remembered by history.
Re:"Probably"? by R3d+M3rcury · 2016-06-13 13:56 · Score: 1

This isn't like the moon... which is at least theoretically close enough that it is at least technologically feasible to orchestrate a rescue mission to bring people home if things go awry
No, actually, it isn't.
I read a little bit of obscure history awhile ago. While in the Apollo 11 LEM, one of astronauts accidentally broke the switch they would use to turn on the ascent engine. Fortunately, Buzz was able to cram a pen in there and launch off of the Moon. But Nixon already had his speech prepared--the two astronauts would have died on the Moon and there wasn't a damn thing NASA could have done for them.
Re:"Probably"? by narf0708 · 2016-06-13 14:07 · Score: 2

Those considering this need to completely rethink propulsion and come up with a plan for getting people not only there, but home.... safely and expediently, in time scales measured in hours or a few days at most... not weeks, and certainly not months. Otherwise, any rocket we send them up in may as well be their tomb.
Why? Why do you think that colonists want to return to place they left? And why do you think that Earth is necessarily a better tomb for every single person than Mars would be?

--
"Violence is not the answer. Violence is the question. The answer is yes."
Re:"Probably"? by thinkwaitfast · 2016-06-13 14:21 · Score: 1

Google will remember you. A lot of people around here seem to worry a lot about that too.
Re:"Probably"? by dbIII · 2016-06-13 14:32 · Score: 1

Until we have the technology to get to mars in a matter of only a few days or less
Incredibly unlikely for a long list of reasons, but what is likely given time is having several things going there per year. You need food next week? Here's a shipment sent last year that's arriving next week.

NASA, unlike Musk PR (or whatever is really happening), is doing things the right way by carefully building the pieces of the puzzle over time - eg. experiments growing food at the south pole and all the hundreds of little things required to have a colony.
They don't want it to turn out like the first settlement of Australia where they brought the wheat but forgot the bees. Really odd story, but people where very hungry until the first beekeeper and his bees were sent out. The Australian native bees were too small so got the nectar without spreading the pollen.
Re:"Probably"? by mark-t · 2016-06-13 14:48 · Score: 1

I did explicitly say give the caveat that a second mission would have to be prepared for. My point is that it is technologically possible to implement.
If something happened on mars, it wouldn't matter how prepared we were here, we wouldn't be able to get any assistance to them remotely expediently enough.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Re:"Probably"? by Imrik · 2016-06-13 15:57 · Score: 1

Probably true, but if that manned mission lasts a couple decades or more, I wouldn't really call it suicide, more of a permanent change of address. (not that I would expect early missions to actually be that successful)
Re:"Probably"? by khallow · 2016-06-13 16:35 · Score: 1

Until we have the technology to get to mars in a matter of only a few days or less, I predict that every manned mission to mars that we attempt will have a 100% fatality rate. It is suicide to go there... plain and simple.
Or we can simply bring more stuff. We already have demonstrated that we can live in space for months without resupply.
Re:"Probably"? by Opportunist · 2016-06-13 17:45 · Score: 1

Google isn't so interesting in remembering dead people. There's little money in their data. Despite repeated tries, it remains really, really hard to sell something to decomposing corpses that aren't still able to switch TV channels and reach into the chips bag.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:"Probably"? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-13 18:58 · Score: 1

AND? SO? Are you so enamoured by what passes for life here on Earth (iPhones, iPADS, Security & Privacy being slowly ripped away day after day) that you can't even imagine other people jumping at the chance to be an 'explorer' or 'colonizer of another planet' without any desire for recognition just the shear joy of being one of the first to try?
Hell, if I was 30 years younger & hadn't taken up smoking at a young and stupid age I'd be seriously considering this. I have a M.Sc in Physics, B.Sc in Math already & see nothing that would have held me back from tacking on a few actually useful other degrees (Biology, Engineering etc.). Now, not saying for sure I would (given my reference to being young and stupid for taking up smoking you might get the proper impression that I wasn't very mature even in to my high teens, early tweens but the person I am now would jump at this chance in a hot second if it looked 'real'...not just a pie-in-the-sky hope...hey I'm not stupid & wasn't even back then).
Re:"Probably"? by thinkwaitfast · 2016-06-13 19:22 · Score: 1

My neighbor pollinates her garden by hand (actually I think a qtip). Doesn't take very long and is effective.
Re:"Probably"? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-13 19:23 · Score: 1

On a long enough timeline everyones survival rate drops to zero.
If I knew I say only had a decade left of good health and productivity, and there were enough provisions being sent to Mars to keep me alive for a year so I could do useful science, I would take the year because I would be sacrificing for all future humans. It might be possible that I would make a new discovery that could benefit the other seven billion people here and untold billion in the future. Losing those other nine years is a small price to try to do that much good.
Even if my individual contribution of effort doesn't really amount to all that much, every avalanche is made up of individual snow flakes. Mine could be the one that decides which way the avalanche falls, or it could be the first of many more to come.
In any case, just because it is suicide doesn't mean that it won't be worth it.
Re:"Probably"? by allcoolnameswheretak · 2016-06-13 20:29 · Score: 1

I do have to wonder why not try to setup a base on the moon first. That should net you plenty of experience, it's orders of magnitude easier to get there, and it could be used as a launching pad for the missions further beyond.
The next step should perhaps be to establish a couple of space stations or supply depots in the orbit between Earth and Mars, perhaps every 90Â. These can be navigated to in the case of emergency and used as facilitators for communications.
Then there should probably be a space station of some sort in orbit around Mars, before actually landing on the planet. Some kind of backup that people will be able to return to if things go awry on the surface.
Aiming for planetfall on Mars directly seems like a jump in at the deep end.
Re:"Probably"? by dcw3 · 2016-06-13 23:23 · Score: 1

You underestimate the interest in ancestry.

--
Just another day in Paradise
Re:"Probably"? by dcw3 · 2016-06-13 23:27 · Score: 1

My neighbor pollinates her garden by hand (actually I think a qtip). Doesn't take very long and is effective.
QTips were on the third fleet.

--
Just another day in Paradise
Re:"Probably"? by JaredOfEuropa · 2016-06-13 23:48 · Score: 1

Assistance doesn't have to be in the form of a brave standby team rushing to the launch pad and blasting off to a daring rescue mission. The best way to safeguard a Mars mission, given the distance from Earth, is in redundancy. Multiple settlements within driving distance. Separate backup stores of food, oxygen, water and supplies, on the surface and/or perhaps orbiting Mars so they can be delivered anywhere as needed (these can be sent there before the actual mission blasts off). Backup life support, generators, shelters, everything. It's possible to send the stuff they need to survive in advance, to be used until a rescue mission does get there. Only in cases where the crew is incapacitated (bad case of the Martian flu perhaps) or an immediate liftoff and return home is required would they actually be in trouble: even if they have a working ascent module and return ship, the planet's alignment with Earth might be such that the trip would take too long or too much fuel.

--
If construction was anything like programming, an incorrectly fitted lock would bring down the entire building...
Re:"Probably"? by fahrbot-bot · 2016-06-14 00:19 · Score: 1

I predict that every manned mission to mars that we attempt will have a 100% fatality rate.
Living on Earth has a 100% fatality rate.

--
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Re:"Probably"? by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-14 01:00 · Score: 1

Sounds like you should be backing life extension and anti-aging research first.
Re:"Probably"? by Megane · 2016-06-14 01:33 · Score: 1

Even if they did have the right vehicles to return to Earth, the orbital mechanics of Earth/Mars transfer are a bitch. If you take the six-month trajectory to Mars, once you get there you have to wait a year for the six-month trajectory back to Earth. If you just wanted to do a touch-and-go mission, the return time is eighteen months. Either way, you're not getting back to Earth less than two years from first launch without some kind of constant thrust rockets to make you go faster, and maybe not even with them.

--
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
Re:"Probably"? by drsquare · 2016-06-14 01:33 · Score: 1

You remember them, but not their crews.
Re:"Probably"? by Ol+Olsoc · 2016-06-14 01:34 · Score: 1

Until we have the technology to get to mars in a matter of only a few days or less, I predict that every manned mission to mars that we attempt will have a 100% fatality rate. It is suicide to go there... plain and simple.
Which is exactly the same fatality rate of those living on earth.

--
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Re:"Probably"? by drsquare · 2016-06-14 01:36 · Score: 1

but what is likely given time is having several things going there per year

With Mars it will be every 26 months.
Re:"Probably"? by Megane · 2016-06-14 01:36 · Score: 1

We need a pulp SF story where a lazy astronaut just jizzes on the plants, and in the end they all get eaten by plant people, who successfully reproduce and take over Mars.

--
#naabhaprzrag, #sverubfr-000, #agi-fcbafberq, negvpyr[pynff*=' negvpyr-ary-'] { qvfcynl: abar !vzcbegnag; }
Re:"Probably"? by Ol+Olsoc · 2016-06-14 01:42 · Score: 1

You are going to die anyway. Wouldn't it be nice to be remembered in a few hundred years instead of fading away into nothingness? Some people think so, and they are more than willing to die trying to get to mars.
Safety culture has us firmly in it's grip, and the concept of doing anything risky - aside from hurtling at each others in cars - is just not comprehensible to 99 percent of humanity. In at least America, there are many people who live in walled and gated communities, have to drive past a guard to get to their ADT security equipped house, and have a safe room in it to boot.
And they still do not feel safe. Trying to explain a sense of adventure to such people is simply not possible.

--
The shepherds did so well protecting the flock that the sheep no longer believed that wolves existed.
Re:"Probably"? by slack_prad · 2016-06-14 02:14 · Score: 1

Everyone knows who put the first step on moon.

--
Sent from my desktop computer
Re:"Probably"? by mrchaotica · 2016-06-14 02:19 · Score: 2

Living on Earth has a 100% fatality rate.
No it doesn't. Of the approximately 107 billion humans who have ever lived, 7.4 billion of them are still alive, giving a fatality rate of only about 93.1%.

--
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Re:"Probably"? by Opportunist · 2016-06-14 03:21 · Score: 1

Why would I be interested in granny porn? Even if the chicks in the movie were underage when gramps watched them, I'd have to go through a few attempts before I find out what wrinkle actually goes deeper.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.
Re:"Probably"? by mark-t · 2016-06-14 04:18 · Score: 1

Would you be equally willing to go if you you had every reason to suspect that you would be dead in less than 2 years? Quite possibly even before you arrived on Mars?
If we try to go to Mars with the tech we have now, I anticipate that the journey there alone will have at least a 20% fatality rate, and the mission will have 100% fatality even before the next viable trip comes up to send up more people or supplies.

--
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
Re:"Probably"? by ultranova · 2016-06-14 04:24 · Score: 1

Why? Given the trouble we're already having on Earth, that's probably one of the stupidest research areas we could pursue. Only attractive to those with an unreasonable fear of death, and the narcissists who think the world would be a better place if they lived forever.

Because stopping and preferably reversing aging would benefit people by stopping their bodies from deteriorating with age. Duh.
And seriously, are you now a narcissist if you'd rather be alive than dead or healthy rather than decrepit? WTF?

--
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Re:"Probably"? by khallow · 2016-06-14 04:25 · Score: 1

Who is this "we"? I didn't vote for my government to steal my money to pay for a bunch of elitist scientists and astronauts to stay in space for months at a time, researching things that propagate other government agendas like climate change.
The research is already done and the funding source is irrelevant to future endeavors. A private effort could also pack up many months of supplies as part of a trip to Mars.
Re:"Probably"? by fahrbot-bot · 2016-06-14 04:36 · Score: 1

Living on Earth has a 100% fatality rate.
No it doesn't. Of the approximately 107 billion humans who have ever lived, 7.4 billion of them are still alive, giving a fatality rate of only about 93.1%.
Your math is too short term. All those people will eventually die, as will all the new ones born - unless you're implying the discovery of human immortality.

--
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Re:"Probably"? by mrchaotica · 2016-06-14 04:46 · Score: 1

My math was a joke. I probably should have added a smiley or a sarcasm tag or something.

--
"[Regarding the 'cloud,'] ownership was what made America different than Russia." -- Woz
Re:"Probably"? by slew · 2016-06-14 04:54 · Score: 1

You underestimate the interest in ancestry.
There's only so much you want to know about your parents (google has only been around less than 20 years)...
Also, even ancestry.com has to make their money selling subscriptions and DNA tests to the living (not adwords)...
Re:"Probably"? by fahrbot-bot · 2016-06-14 05:00 · Score: 1

My math was a joke. I probably should have added a smiley or a sarcasm tag or something.
Sorry, one never knows here on /. Here's another math/logic joke:
"Breathing is fatal. 100% of all dead people were habitual breathers."

--
It must have been something you assimilated. . . .
Re:"Probably"? by Hognoxious · 2016-06-14 06:01 · Score: 1

/\
|
roman_mir

--
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Re:"Probably"? by khallow · 2016-06-14 13:53 · Score: 1

The solution of sending more supplies to keep a tiny specific group alive is one devised by the government. It has not been tested by the free market as efficient or profitable. As said, history has shown us that it is more efficient to send more groups of colonists with less supplies than fewer groups with more supplies.
It's worth noting here that government hasn't devised anything at this point. And history hasn't shown what you claim. The Oregon Trail, for example, was existing infrastructure. Just dumping a bunch of people with inadequate food (assuming even that they have enough food to survive to get to Mars) on Mars is not going to magically result in colonists.

Also, it's a peculiar case of the sunk cost fallacy to ignore valid past research and technology demonstration just because you don't like funding source. That is foolish and ends up costing any effort more resources reinventing the wheel.

My view is that no matter the funding source, something like the following will be what is viable:

1) Establish one or more unmanned supply depots and methane processing plants (depending on the resources your group has available) on Mars.
2) Send a small group of Matt Damons with a lot of food to one or more of these depots.
3) Once they've established a colony or colonies which can keep a bunch of people alive indefinitely (in other words, started the "Oregon Trail"), then send a bunch of skilled colonists to expand the colony and build up infrastructure.
4) Open the colony to mass immigration.

And let us recall that my first reply was to the claim that transportation to Mars needed to be at most a few days. I merely pointed out that slower transportation coupled with more food and water is viable too. Given that we don't actually have incredibly fast transportation but we do have people living in space for months, the latter is far more viable.
Re:"Probably"? by dbIII · 2016-06-14 18:02 · Score: 1

Only if you care about getting a single delivery from A to B as quick as possible instead of sending a lot of stuff over time.
With people every 26 months makes sense. With various supplies they get there when they get there so we don't have to use Buzz Aldrin's fastest method. If it takes a very long time but they have to decellerate less at the Mars end then all the better, so long as it's not the only thing coming.

Of course if we are going to be sending stuff to Mars with arrival times several times a year I'd expect a serious presence in orbit and on the moon. If we are going to be sending a lot of mass to Mars then I'd expect a fair bit of it would not be dragged up from Earth at vast energy cost.
Re:"Probably"? by ultranova · 2016-06-16 00:06 · Score: 1

Consider the social and ecological implications of either most people suddenly living much longer (~+50% global population growth rate),

Population growth rate in every country in a position to apply cutting-edge medical procedures is negative. Do you have any reason to believe people living much longer would suddenly make them want to have lots of babies?

or the wealthy elite not dying off anymore to give younger generations a chance to flourish.

What do I care if it's the Monopoly Man. or Monopoly Man Jr. who gives me the pink slip because my job got automated? I'm not part of the 1%, so neither will my descendants be, thus whether they "flourish" is independent of whether the rich live forever.
But even if that was not true, would you rather be rich for a few decades and then die than be poor but alive? Especially since the only reason we even have poverty anymore is our failures as a society, not lack of resources or production, so it'll likely be remedied at some point.

--
Forget magic. Any technology distinguishable from divine power is insufficiently advanced.
Re:"Probably"? by Immerman · 2016-06-16 03:59 · Score: 1

Two reasons:
1) Because Jr. lacks the cunning and strong connections that daddy built over a lifetime, so the empire tends to falter as power is transferred. Which allows an opening for competitors to get in the game, and some wealth and power to trickle downwards. And that doesn't just happen at the top - wealth catalyzes the accumulation of more wealth at every level in society. Most people though tend to hit retirement before they accumulate enough to really get the ball rolling - dramatically extend their lifespan though, and you end up rapidly accelerating the concentration of wealth.
2) Because Monopoly Man pretty much runs the government, and was the one who propped up laws against interracial marriage, opposed women's suffrage, etc. Those laws didn't change until Jr. took over the reigns of power with his more lenient, modern sensibilities. Society progresses largely through the death of the opposition - immortality would mean that has to happen mostly by assassination - a tool much more popular among the "evil tyranny" groups than those who honor peace and justice.
Also, zero population growth means something completely different when you bring immortality into the picture. Right now it means averaging two kids per woman. Add immortality, and it means essentially zero. Ever. Someone has to die via accident or violence before another is allowed to be born. And who gets to choose who the lucky parents-to-be will be? That's a rather ferocious biological drive to subvert, especially if the population if "frozen" in it's prime child-bearing years. It also means that to get the population down to the point where we're within the long-term ecological carrying capacity of the planet we have to start intentionally killing people, rather than just bringing global birth rates below replacement for a century or so. (Though I'll admit some of the modern vertical farming, etc. systems promise the potential to artificially increase that capacity)
Now don't get me wrong, I'd love to see advances that let people look and feel like they were in their 30s until they keel over from sudden massive system failures at 80 or so. But given the preliminary anti-aging successes so far, that seems an *extremely* unlikely outcome.

--
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Re:"Probably"? by drsquare · 2016-06-17 21:31 · Score: 1

26 months isn't as quickly as possible it's the efficient way, that's how long it takes Mars and Earth to line up for a Hohmann transfer.
Re:"Probably"? by drsquare · 2016-06-17 21:34 · Score: 1

All space vessels have a (delta v) budget.

Radiation by Bohnanza · 2016-06-13 13:25 · Score: 5, Interesting

Has Musk yet explained how he plans to keep them all from dying of radiation overdose?

--

-----

Sorry, I'm only a 1336 h4x0r.

Re:Radiation by NotInHere · 2016-06-13 13:30 · Score: 1

I guess: on mars, build your home below ground. when travelling to mars (and/or back): hope that there is no storm coming your way :)
Re:Radiation by NEDHead · 2016-06-13 13:32 · Score: 1

Only the people near the walls of the ship will be badly exposed - those nearer the interior will be much better shielded.
Re:Radiation by wierd_w · 2016-06-13 13:43 · Score: 4, Interesting

There are many solutions proposed for dealing with the radiation. That isn't a useful question (by itself.)
You should be asking instead: Has Musk announced how he will provide sufficient sheilding while maintaining a workable delta-v, and mission cost projection?
For example, Musk could decide on an inner and outer hull design with a nice empty space between, into which polyvinylacrylate (those crystals inside diapers) powder and liquid water is introduced. The powder absorbs all the water, turns it into a thick gel that cannot flow well, and thus will mostly stay put if the tank depressurizes. That means micrometeorites and the like are not a problem, and the high hydrogen density of the gel and low dispersion means that harmful cosmic rays cant penetrate deeply, and irradiated water wont migrate throug h the gel all that quickly.
That means that once put into service, the sheilding can continue to used basically forever as long as the ship is in service and good quarantine is in effect.
The downside? water is heavy as fuck. The fuel to move it around is heavy as fuck. The ship will take for fucking ever to reach mars, and will cost a fortune to fuel and launch.
The issue isnt stopping the radiation. It's doing so efficiently without killing yourself financially that is the kicker.
Re:Radiation by ColdWetDog · 2016-06-13 13:49 · Score: 2

Easy. They die of something else.
Crash landing into the planet. Vacuum leak. Psychotic crew members. Any number of fatal problems might get you before the radiation does.

--
Faster! Faster! Faster would be better!
Re:Radiation by Gavagai80 · 2016-06-13 14:02 · Score: 1

Once you're on the surface of Mars, the solution is easy: just go another several feet under the surface.

--
This space intentionally left blank
Re:Radiation by wierd_w · 2016-06-13 14:08 · Score: 1

Not advisable. High energy particle interaction will make the water radioactive over time. That's what is so good about the gel-- it doesnt flow well, and has low dispersion. The radioactive water will stay near the outer hull. That water's one and only use is as sheilding.
Besides, there seems to be plenting of bound hydrogen and oxygen on mars, and brine water appears to be a seasonal feature at equitorial latitudes just below the surface. Water on mars is not a significant hurdle.
Radiation exposure on the martian surface is more of an intractible problem than water. For that, the cheapest is sandbags piled up over dirt that was itself piled up on top of the habitats. Surface exposure is going to be a very serious thing that needs mitigation.
Re:Radiation by 110010001000 · 2016-06-13 14:13 · Score: 1

Obviously "easy". We just dig holes using our shovels and cover our heads with diapers. On Mars.
Re:Radiation by 110010001000 · 2016-06-13 14:19 · Score: 1

"Water on Mars is not a significant hurdle". Do you guys really believe what you say?
Re:Radiation by wierd_w · 2016-06-13 14:33 · Score: 1

Considering that seasonal brine flows have been seen large enough to displace TONS of martial soil from the MRO, yes-- Yes I do.
Also, when considering the ground penetrating radar scans showing shallow subsurface water ice.
There is a lot of water on Mars.
Re:Radiation by dbIII · 2016-06-13 14:40 · Score: 1

It's things like that which make a moonbase or space station as a step to Mars a good idea. Attaching Earth built propulsion systems and a crew module to rock that you didn't have to launch is another idea.
It a situation where you have to first ask why are you going to Mars and is it going to happen a lot.
Re:Radiation by wierd_w · 2016-06-13 15:23 · Score: 1

Clearly you are just an argumentative idiot that cant be bothered to actually educate himself.
I can cure ignorance, but not stupid. If you cant figure out how you can collect seasonally flowing liquid water, I dont even know where to begin.
In short, you are an idiot, and you should feel bad. But dont let that little fact disuade you like any of the others I have upset your sensibilities with. By all means, demonstrate your idiocy some more with yet more ill-founded aspersions. Please, I enjoy the entertainment.
Re:Radiation by DerekLyons · 2016-06-13 15:23 · Score: 1

He hasn't explained how he will avoid radiation overdoses. Or how he'll do what NASA doesn't know how to do (land such a large vehicle). Or how the colony's ongoing costs will be paid for. Or... well, he hasn't explained much of anything really.
Not that such lack of explanations has prevented the fanboys from declaring the mission a success in advance.
Re:Radiation by presidenteloco · 2016-06-13 15:37 · Score: 1

http://www.marsicehouse.com/

--

Where are we going and why are we in a handbasket?
Re:Radiation by Robotbeat · 2016-06-13 15:53 · Score: 5, Interesting

It's almost impossible to die of space radiation overdose. The galactic cosmic rays can't kill you via a radiation overdose, they're dose rate is much, MUCH too low.
The only thing with a high enough dose rate is solar particle event. And, in fact, there are very few that are strong enough to kill you (but note, there are winter or thunderstorms that can easily kill you if you're unprotected on Earth). One has occurred, however, in August of 1972, with a dose of about 1 Sievert, but it'd only be that high if your only shielding was a thin space suit ( here's a source for that). If you were inside a capsule or on the surface of Mars (shielded by the yes-still-significant Martian atmosphere), you'd be totally fine. Even 1 Sv not really enough to kill you. You need about 2 Sv to really be in danger of immediate radiation overdose and death. But you could vomit in your spacesuit and suffocate. However, these events are not instantaneous, you'd have a warning and the events occur over a period of an hour or several hours, so you have enough time to get inside or behind a rock or something.
No, it's nearly impossible to die from acute natural radiation overdose in space.
You'll survive the trip. The worry is about an increase in occurrence of cancer when you get back. However, in any case, the risk of cancer from living in space is less than being a smoker. Although, given the huge deal we make about the space radiation issue, you wouldn't know it. You'd think you'd die instantly or something, which just isn't true.
As far as how to deal with it, well Mars' surface has a much lower radiation dose from GCRs and especially solar flares. You're half shielded by the planet itself and secondarily by an average of around 40 grams per square centimeter of CO2 mass, maybe more at lower altitudes. Additionally, just massive amounts of rock or dirt work great. And water is more effective per unit mass.
On the way to Mars, your best bet is to shorten the trip to 90-100 days as Musk suggests, and perhaps use your supplies (water, food, maybe propellant) to shield you from solar particle events. That'd reduce your transit dose to a manageable amount. And you can also use drugs like Amifostine to avoid some of the radiation effects, especially the effects of acute radiation (we're unsure if Amifostine helps for chronic radiation). But once on the surface of Mars, it's possible to reduce the dosage to arbitrarily low levels.
But again, these are long-term health effects, perhaps like you'd see in any kind of hazardous environment. But you'll be able to perform the mission just fine.
Re:Radiation by Imrik · 2016-06-13 16:00 · Score: 1

Water isn't a significant hurdle when compared to other hurdles. Water for the trip is a bigger problem than water on the surface.
Re:Radiation by Michael+Woodhams · 2016-06-13 16:24 · Score: 1

Pure water will not accumulate radioactivity. With one exception, there is no reaction with hydrogen or oxygen to make a long term radioactive nucleus. 16O+n->17O (stable). 17O+n->18O (stable). Very rare 18O+n-> 19O, half-life 26s. 16O+p->17F, half-life 65s. Etc.
The only exception is 2H+n -> 3H (tritium, half-life 12.3 years) but the cross section for this is very small, and H2 (deuterium) has very low concentration (0.01%) in ordinary water.
So leave your irradiated pure water for half an hour out of radiation, and it will be fine.
Contaminants in the water could accumulate long term radioactivity. If this is enough to be a problem (I'd bet it isn't), you'd need to purify the water before use.

--
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.
Re:Radiation by wierd_w · 2016-06-13 16:32 · Score: 1

The water is freely flowing down the slope.
So, a sandpoint and some black PVC pipe will be sufficient. It would require a purpose built robot to do the deed, but once driven, could extract hundreds of gallons of very salty water per martian day.
This is hardly difficult problem solving. Hell, you could use a freaking bucket brigade if you did it fast enough.
The major problems will be freezing of the water in the storage tank, due to it being colder than a witch's tit, even in full sun, in summer. It will need solar powered heating elements to keep it liquid.
If you dont know what a sandpoint is, I suggest you google it.
Re:Radiation by wierd_w · 2016-06-13 16:45 · Score: 1

The issue is the metal of the hull itself, and the acrylate plastic the gel is comprised of.
Both will be sources of nastier, longer lived radioisotopes.
Re:Radiation by khallow · 2016-06-13 16:46 · Score: 1

High energy particle interaction will make the water radioactive over time.
So what? It won't be a serious problem over a human lifetime, especially compared to the high energy particle interaction with the crew.
Re:Radiation by Solandri · 2016-06-13 18:17 · Score: 1

Or how he'll do what NASA doesn't know how to do (land such a large vehicle).
The Falcon 9's first stage weight is estimated to be about 25 tons when empty. That's the stage that returns to Earth (or sea) and lands.

The space shuttle weighed about 82.5 tons when empty. Mars' gravity is about 38% that of Earths. 82.5 tons * 38% = weight equivalent to about 31 tons. So aside from inertia, the practice Space X has been getting landing the Falcon 9 translates almost exactly into landing a space shuttle-sized craft vertically on Mars.

Agreed that radiation is a huge problem. I think oxygen generation and recycling water and waste materials are equally daunting problems (it's unrealistic to carry enough oxygen, water, and CO2 scrubbers for a 2.5 year mission). We've just begun tackling those issues.
Re:Radiation by wierd_w · 2016-06-13 18:30 · Score: 1

You dont land the heavy transporter. That is silly.
The transport does transfer orbit maneouvers between mars and earth. It never enters atmosphere, and ideally, would never have experienced being at the bottom of a steep gravity well. If you dont mind long schedules, it could theoretically fall between lagranian points for very little fuel.
What it has:
Thick rad shielding (take your pick, but water is ideal.)
Heavy cargo capacity
Nuclear power
Possibly small fabrication suite
Big ass engines
simulated gravity crew section (really, just a big spinning section for people to spend time/exercise in.)
The heavy cargo capacity is where it shines. it drops landing craft from orbit. Think Dragon cargo capsule, but could just as easily be big rover type payloads.
I know it looks like snake oil, but if EM-drive actually keeps holding up to tests, it could enable this kind of vehicle.
Re:Radiation by thinkwaitfast · 2016-06-13 19:26 · Score: 1

No, but reverse osmosis works well and is not hat energy intensive. You seem to be hung up on technical details when the real problems are what is there to do here that a robot cannot do more ccst effectively.
Re:Radiation by OolimPhon · 2016-06-13 21:38 · Score: 1

This.
The whole purpose behind developing the ability to land Falcon 9s on Earth is to eventually take them to Mars and land them.
You would need a lot less fuel to land on Mars and you wouldn't have to worry about water landings.
Once they get the techniques for producing fuel from Martian resources sorted out, that reuseable Falcon 9 is handy for getting stuff back into Martian orbit... and landing back on Mars again.
Re:Radiation by iris-n · 2016-06-13 22:29 · Score: 1

Why would you freeze the corpses? And how would you keep them frozen once outside?

--
entropy happens
Re:Radiation by angel'o'sphere · 2016-06-13 23:06 · Score: 1

Not advisable. High energy particle interaction will make the water radioactive over time.
How exactly should that work?
Water consists out of H2O.
To become radioactive the H needs to capture neutrons, does the solar wind contain them (no idea, did not check)? Or the O needs to capture neutrons.
Both reactions from solar wind are very unlikely. The rest of the solar wind are random 'cores' like Alpha particles and probably Lithium and other light weight stuff. I doubt they have enough energy to penetrate the hull. If they do, then just use 2 layers of water. A 10cm thick outer shielding and then the main water tank.

--
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.
Re:Radiation by MindStalker · 2016-06-14 01:31 · Score: 1

Not even close.
SpaceX landing uses atmopsheric drag. Most of the landing comes from its terminal velocity. Earths terminal velocity is about 200 km/h, Mars terminal velocity is 1000 km/h (both of which change per shape/density/etc).
Re:Radiation by G-forze · 2016-06-14 01:46 · Score: 1

But those are chemically different and kan be removed through chemical means, if not straight up mechanical.

--
"There's someone in my head but it's not me." - Pink Floyd, Dark Side of the Moon
Re:Radiation by Immerman · 2016-06-14 03:56 · Score: 1

Which are irrelevant, if you purify the water before drinking it. Though that leaves the question of how difficult would that would be. But if nothing else I'd imagine fractional distillation would get the job done.

--
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Re:Radiation by Immerman · 2016-06-14 04:27 · Score: 1

Not many free neutrons in the solar wind this far out - they have a 10.3 minute half-life before decaying into hydrogen atoms, which puts the Earth 70-140 half-lives away depending on wind speed. At worst only one in 10^21 would reach us.
The solar wind is only part of the problem though (about half I think) - interstellar radiation is comparably dangerous, and includes all sorts of fun things like high-energy particle radiation to make the LHC look like kids banging rocks together, single photons with a mass-energy comparable to an entire iron atom (okay, we've only detected one that massive...), etc.
Basically anything exposed to unshielded space is being slowly but steadily bombarded by things quite capable of shattering even normally stable nuclei - occasionally they'll even shatter the protons. I recall hearing that one of the reasons they don't put something like lead shielding on the ISS is because the particle cascades that result are far more damaging that simply letting the original radiation hit the astronauts.

--
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Re:Radiation by Immerman · 2016-06-14 04:52 · Score: 1

Can't speak for everyone, but a lot of the wonder for life extension gets lost by looking at the appalling long-term social and ecological implications of any dramatic successes, at least for now.
I agree that life is full of wonder right here, but it's full of wonder everywhere. If someone sees the wonder in taking humanity on its first steps toward spreading life across the cosmos, who are you to say they are any more foolish than the person wise enough to see the wonder of an utterly common strawberry plant in a field?
Especially when, as a side effect, they are creating technologies that make space far more accessible for more practical uses? SpaceX and it's advances exist because Musk wants to go to Mars, not the other way around. Frankly, it seems a much better use for a billionaire's hobby-money than what you see from most.

--
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Re:Radiation by mustermark · 2016-06-14 05:01 · Score: 1

High energy particle interaction will make the water radioactive over time.
This is inaccurate. Solar wind and Galactic cosmic ray protons and the infrequent gamma-ray will not make the water radioactive. Neutrons are non-existent out there, and electrons and X-rays will get stopped by the hull.
Gamma rays can cause nuclear excitation, but that usually decays within minutes of the hit, and is proportional to the primary incident radiation anyway.
Radiation on the surface is simple. Just spend most of your time underground, especially during a solar flare. You'll probably want to do that anyway, for cost and safety of creating a pressurized habitat.
Re:Radiation by mustermark · 2016-06-14 05:02 · Score: 1

Neutrons will travel at the speed they are emitted, not the wind speed, because they are uncharged and don't interact with the plasma.
Re:Radiation by slew · 2016-06-14 05:59 · Score: 1

Not even close.
SpaceX landing uses atmopsheric drag. Most of the landing comes from its terminal velocity. Earths terminal velocity is about 200 km/h, Mars terminal velocity is 1000 km/h (both of which change per shape/density/etc).
This. It is extremely hard to land something heavy on Mars.
Mars is *tweener*. It's got too much atmosphere to land something heavy solely with retro-rockets (more fuel means more mass to slow before it burns up), and too little atmosphere to land something heavy with parachutes like we do on earth.
Landing something around 2000lbs is the limit of current Mars Landing technology. The reason the latest mars science laboratory (MSL) lander used a a powered decent rocket + sky crane and not an inflatable airbag system used by earlier rovers is that with the mass of the MSL (2000lbs rover), the parachute drag didn't slow it enough and it would have gotten crushed with an airbag landing...
Current thinking is that even to get enough interesting mass into Mars orbit, some sort of aerocapture maneuver will need to be performed. That is even before you attempt to land the payload in smaller pieces...
And of course the SpaceX rockets that are currently landed on earth are essentially empty.
Old Father Elon
Went to the von-braun,
To give the poor colonist a bone;
When he came there,
The von-braun was bare,
And so the poor colonist had none.
Re:Radiation by Immerman · 2016-06-14 06:43 · Score: 1

Good point. Lets find some info. My first find:
http://onlinelibrary.wiley.com...

The time-average solar neutron flux above 10 Mev at 1 AU over the last solar cycle is found to be 3×103 neutron/cm2 sec, with a peak intensity at 30 to 40 Mev. This solar neutron flux is comparable to the neutron leakage flux above 10 Mev produced by interactions of galactic cosmic rays with the earth's atmosphere
So there's obviously some high energy neutrons available, and it sounds like enough to compete with the neutrons generated by cosmic-ray interactions with normal matter.

--
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Re:Radiation by werepants · 2016-06-14 07:29 · Score: 1

Except: you have to bring water (and food, and fuel) anyhow. And you have to do something with human waste, which is largely water.
Build your ship such that the sleeping quarters are surrounded by fuel, water, waste, and all the assorted *very massive* material that you are already bringing. Send astronauts there if a solar event is detected. Problem solved. The day-to-day cosmic radiation doesn't have much of an impact - Colorado has a higher than normal level of background radiation due to uranium in the soil, but it hasn't manifested itself through increased cancer rates. So there's reason to believe that there may be a minimum threshold of background activity required to produce a measurable increase in cancer risk.
Re:Radiation by MindStalker · 2016-06-14 08:25 · Score: 1

It should be possible if you plan a descent to be opposite a "normal" assent from Mars (not that we have done that).
Its 3800 deltaV from Mars surface to low Mars orbit, it should be similar cost to land.
That said, 3800 deltaV is still a lot, and I can't imagine it would be feasible to "stage" a re-entry.
Re:Radiation by stealth_finger · 2016-06-14 23:11 · Score: 1

Why would you freeze the corpses? And how would you keep them frozen once outside?
I think the plan is you put them on there fresh and the extreme low temperatures take care of the freezing part.

--
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Re:Radiation by iris-n · 2016-06-14 23:25 · Score: 1

Which extremely low temperatures? I think you are suffering from the common misconception that space is somehow "cold". Well, it ain't, because the sun does shine there. It gets actually really hot. Spacesuits need active cooling systems.
In this particular example, the corpses would be attached to the outside of a spacecraft. I expect the spacecraft to be be around 300 Kelvin, since it's supposed to be habitable. Since vacuum is a really good thermal insulator, I expect the corpses' temperature to be around that. A bit lower than tha when in the shade, and a bit higher than that when exposed to the sun.
Actually this is a question I don't know the answer to: what's the equilibrium temperature of a black body orbiting the Sun more or less at the same distance as the Earth?

--
entropy happens
Re:Radiation by stealth_finger · 2016-06-15 00:55 · Score: 1

Well. like you say space can get really warm, if you're in direct sunlight and if you don't reflect that heat. If you are not in that direct light it can get pretty fucking chilly. So you strap your recently deceased corpses to the dark of your ship and let them freeze there. I'm not sure on the timescales involved but once they are frozen you can then just, I dunno, wrap them in a tarp or pack them in a cavity space or something and with any luck they might stay frozen, probably. Even if they do thaw out they'll still absorb some radiation at least. They might get a bit funky but hey, no smells in space. The real question is how long would it take a body to decompose in a vacuum? I'm guessing longer than usual, especially if you keep the direct rays off it.

--
Wanna buy a shirt?
https://www.redbubble.com/people/stealthfinger/shop?asc=u
Re:Radiation by iris-n · 2016-06-15 02:22 · Score: 1

It might be difficult to keep the bodies protected from the sun, as spaceships tend to move a lot. Also, one needs to be careful about how they're tied, otherwise the ropes themselves will transmit enough heat to thaw them. Or infrared radiation from the spaceship.
Hummm. I think the best way to get frozen corpses is to put then in orbit around the Sun just outside Earth's orbit, so that Earth makes a permanent eclipse. That should get them down to just a few Kelvin.

--
entropy happens

NASA is risk averse? by darthsilun · 2016-06-13 13:29 · Score: 3, Interesting

And Musk/SpaceX is not? Just wait until the relatives of those who die – en route or on Mars – lawyer up?

Re:NASA is risk averse? by WrongMonkey · 2016-06-13 13:45 · Score: 2

In what jurisdiction would they sue? The Martian Emperor does not recognize the authority of Terran courts.
Re:NASA is risk averse? by SJ · 2016-06-13 14:22 · Score: 5, Insightful

Don't think that those people selected to go will have to sign a few documents and undergo a few mental evaluations to make sure they really understand that they will most likely die on the mission?
I would imagine that the direct relatives of the crew will have to sign something similar for the member to be eligible.
Re:NASA is risk averse? by DerekLyons · 2016-06-13 15:29 · Score: 1

Don't think that those people selected to go will have to sign a few documents and undergo a few mental evaluations to make sure they really understand that they will most likely die on the mission?
That's not the problem - it's whether or not those documents and processes will stand the scrutiny of a court of law. It's whether or not they will withstand the scrutiny of whoever ends up granting the launch license. (Which is something of a grey area right now, the current process isn't set up to handle 'non traditional' commercial launches - something the Google X-Prize candidates are currently encountering.) Etc... etc...
The law (AIUI, IANAL) in general does not make any objection to informed people knowingly taking more-or-less known risks, but the risks of this kind of flight don't clearly fall into that category.
Re:NASA is risk averse? by CptLoRes · 2016-06-13 20:41 · Score: 1

So.. Does the military get sued every time a soldier dies? This is no different as long as the risks are made perfectly clear from the outset, and papers signed accordingly.
Re:NASA is risk averse? by drsquare · 2016-06-14 01:41 · Score: 1

Wherever the rockets are built and launched from, or the company is based.
Re:NASA is risk averse? by wvmarle · 2016-06-14 03:39 · Score: 1

Of course they're going to die on Mars. How are you ever going to get them a rocket to return to Earth?

Not ready... by haedus · 2016-06-13 13:32 · Score: 1

With the state of the global economy in general and mass distrust amongst the super powers I do not like the idea of corporate space exploration especially when it comes to mars.

When I think a mission to mars I think international space station. I think of tens maybe hundreds of countries offering up their best and their brightest for a global national collaboration on a project that may span several generations but promises a lot.

It does not sound like that is what is happening though...

I haven't followed spaceX or any of this much, but it feels like this endeavor should be something the entire world can participate in together as a global community.

I want to hear about a true 100 year outline plan to actually colonize the damn planet. The scouting crews who will set up a base. The engineering crews who will terraform, mine, and so forth. I want to hear about the first wave colonization group that brings hand picked men and women from all sorts of countries to build a new community on mars... and then not live long enough to see the many people moving to mars for new opportunity like so many people came to America (and still come for some silly reason)...

I don't think Earth is ready for Earth, at the moment, much less mars...

Re:Not ready... by Shakrai · 2016-06-13 13:59 · Score: 5, Insightful

I think of tens maybe hundreds of countries offering up their best and their brightest for a global national collaboration on a project that may span several generations but promises a lot.

Hundreds of countries? There are only ~180 countries total and the lion's share of them are third world shitholes that can barely clothe, water, and feed their people. When dysentery is still a day to day concern in your country I doubt space exploration is a huge priority. There are only a few dozen countries that can make a meaningful contribution to space exploration. If you consider the EU to be a single country then the number shrinks considerably and we're probably talking about counting them all on two hands. Even in the best of times such international projects tend to be top heavy and inefficient; the ISS has managed to cost many times more than Apollo did, despite relying on existing technology and reaching the same LEO frontier we've been exploring since the 1950s.
Depressed yet? I haven't even touched on geopolitics. The Western World and countries with similar value systems (EU, USA, Canada, Japan, South Korea, Australia, New Zealand, and a few others) can probably be counted on to work together, but if you toss China and Russia (or even India) into the mix the relationship status quickly changes to "It's complicated."
it sucks that this is the case but such is life. So, what do we do? Do we wait for the utopian Star Trek future, where all the problems here on Earth have been figured out, or do we accept that we live in the real world and push forward as best we can? My vote is for the second option.

--
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Re:Not ready... by Midas+Beurling · 2016-06-14 16:43 · Score: 1

When public funds are concerned (Musk and SpaceX won't be paying a Mars mission out of their pockets), pushing "forward" should mean funding work and research that will help us to address our pressing and practical problems here on Earth instead.
Re:Not ready... by angel'o'sphere · 2016-06-15 04:54 · Score: 1

There are only ~180 countries total and the lion's share of them are third world shitholes that can barely clothe, water, and feed their people
30 years ago perhaps. There are probably less than 20 of such countries left.

--
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.

Re:nothing on Mars by NEDHead · 2016-06-13 13:33 · Score: 1

I am not sure that this fits neatly with the goal of colonization...

Re:Martian City by haedus · 2016-06-13 13:36 · Score: 1

We could always bio-engineer humans to better suited to the martian gravity... ...We have the technology, we can grow them...

I look forward to the reality TV show by warewolfsmith · 2016-06-13 13:41 · Score: 1

Death on mars, following the crash landing explosive decompression and destruction of vital resources the remaining crew struggle valiantly to survive until rescue arrives in about 2 years.

First SpaceX Missions To Mars: 'Dangerous and Prob by omar.sahal · 2016-06-13 13:42 · Score: 1

Never really understood the need for these types of adventures, could someone explain why traveling to a barren rock is so thrilling! No trolling, and I understand the importance to science but even the quest for knowledge has it's limits.

Re:Martian City by thinkwaitfast · 2016-06-13 13:50 · Score: 2

That's an engineering problem and solvable. The larger problem is that there will be nothing to do if people go. You sit around in a bubble, drive around in a small bubble for short distances. Ever live in a small town with 200 residence? It would be like this, but much worse. They are nice to visit, but you go stir cray after a few days. Weeks if you are lucky. The only new things you'd ever see is whatever Earth decided to send.

Re:Martian City by R3d+M3rcury · 2016-06-13 14:03 · Score: 2

The radiation and differences in gravity would wreak havoc on humans [...]

The radiation, I can agree with. Differences in gravity?

Don't get me wrong, Zero G isn't good for you. But we really have no clue what one-third G will do. Unfortunately, NASA budget cuts left the Centrifuge Accommodations Module sitting on Earth, which we could have used to figure out the effects of less/more G over long durations.

perfect candidates by Gravis+Zero · 2016-06-13 14:05 · Score: 5, Funny

Can we please send the members of congress on the first flight?! I mean come on, what's the worse that could happen?... and please include details. ;)

--
Anons need not reply. Questions end with a question mark.

Re:perfect candidates by Shakrai · 2016-06-13 14:13 · Score: 2

It blows up on the launchpad?
Wait, my apologies, you asked for the worst case scenario, not the best.....

--
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.
Re:perfect candidates by Imrik · 2016-06-13 16:07 · Score: 1

They meet an alien race and manage to convince them we're a danger to the universe.
Re:perfect candidates by RivenAleem · 2016-06-16 21:49 · Score: 1

The worst that could happen?
They could actually be successful and you then have an entire planet who are the descendants of these people.

Re:Martian City by Shakrai · 2016-06-13 14:11 · Score: 1

Stop feeding the troll. "Space nutter" was in his first reply; he's not interested in an actual dialogue....

--
I want peace on earth and goodwill toward man.
We are the United States Government! We don't do that sort of thing.

doomed by globaljustin · 2016-06-13 14:12 · Score: 1

If they go like this, they are doomed.8

--
Thank you Dave Raggett

Re:Martian City by meadow · 2016-06-13 14:15 · Score: 1

Of course someone will just say "we will live underground on Mars!". But that is pure Scifi at that point.

Just one correction: Actually that would not be scifi but rather fantasy, inasmuch as Star Wars for example is considered fantasy - not scifi - because so much of it is just scientifically preposterous and absurd. In fantasy the creators don't actually care about science. In scifi they do.

Re:Martian City by thinkwaitfast · 2016-06-13 14:15 · Score: 1

I'm by no means a space nutter. But I am a real life space engineer (aka rocket scientist). With a degree in nuclear physics. The problem has been solved here on earth. 6m of lead will stop an awful lot.

Where are you gong to get that much lead?

Send it from Earth.

But won't that take a big rocket. Or at least a lot of smaller rockets?

Yes, that's the engineering part

Re:First SpaceX Missions To Mars: 'Dangerous and P by narf0708 · 2016-06-13 14:24 · Score: 2

Ultimately, the answer is simply this: https://www.youtube.com/watch?... Everything else is just a justification, true ones of course, but never the primary reason.

Some people get it, some people don't. I happen to be one of the people who do, and that's okay. It sounds like you happen to be one of the people who don't, and that's okay too.

--
"Violence is not the answer. Violence is the question. The answer is yes."

Re:nothing on Mars by thinkwaitfast · 2016-06-13 14:27 · Score: 1

Earth: In the very immediate future, there will be no jobs left for humans. We need a basic income for people to live. There is literally nothing a robot/computer can't do, and do better.

Mars: Robots don't work on Mars

Errr by sunking2 · 2016-06-13 14:29 · Score: 1

What does public money have to do with being risk adverse for loss of life? We're risk adverse because NASA decided to ram down everyone's throat that they were so good people wouldn't lose their life. NASA is the problem, not the public. Look at how many people lose their life every year climbing Mt Everest. NASA is underfunded for their current plans because they believe loss of life is not acceptable, not the public. We all see people die all over the place.

Re:Errr by unimacs · 2016-06-13 15:12 · Score: 2

When you're spending billions of the public's money on a highly visible program, failure puts continued funding in jeopardy. Failure in this case would be loss of life. I think the public can tolerate failure if it follows initial success and there is reason to believe that further attempts would also be successful.

Getting congress to agree to spend any significant money on an actual Mars program is a long shot anyway. If it weren't for fear of the Soviets gaining supremacy in space, there probably wouldn't have been funding for the Apollo program either. If you somehow manage to get funding for a Mars program and that first mission fails, kiss the program goodbye.

Musk can be more cavalier because it's his company's money he's spending.

Re:Martian City by thinkwaitfast · 2016-06-13 14:35 · Score: 1

I think sending people to Mars, or really anywhere out is space is a stupid idea. I was just commenting that it's a solvable problem.

Being rich must be good by zedaroca · 2016-06-13 14:37 · Score: 3, Insightful

Then you can send people to probable death so they can build the foundation for realizing your safe and comfortable dreams.

Re:Being rich must be good by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-13 19:34 · Score: 2, Informative

He wants to go and has no intention of staying 'safe' compared to anyone else. If Musk could he would be the first person to step foot there regardless of the risk.
He has made that quite clear with his statement "I plan to retire on Mars".
He doesn't mean living a long comfortable Florida existence playing golf, he means, if he has the chance, he is going to go, make some history, hopefully do some useful science and die. He knows this. Death is the end game for us all.
Re:Being rich must be good by thegarbz · 2016-06-14 01:23 · Score: 1

Being rich is a project enabler. No one is condemning anyone to death, especially on a fully voluntary mission.
Mind you much of the modern civilisation is due to this evil phenomenon.

Re:Martian City by guruevi · 2016-06-13 14:39 · Score: 1

We do, it's called test tube babies. We haven't yet modified them extensively yet (unless you count illegal Chinese experiments) but that's mostly due to ethics, not capacity.

--
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com

Re:First SpaceX Missions To Mars: 'Dangerous and P by swb · 2016-06-13 14:46 · Score: 5, Insightful

I was just reading a book on the Vikings this afternoon and happened to read the chapters on the settlement of Iceland and Greenland and thinking about space exploration.

Compared to even Norway, Iceland was a lot like Mars. Totally hostile climate, vast stretches of it totally unsuitable for human habitation. Extremely long voyage to get there in an environment -- the North Sea -- that's sure death if anything goes wrong.

Many died trying anyway, and not just all at once. It took several attempts by people who knew that previous ones had failed, fatally, to establish permanent settlements. And the ones that did fail failed for the same reasons Mars is risky -- we bring the wrong stuff and not enough of the right stuff, the climate is hostile, it's far away so you can't easily go back, and sometimes your fellow colonists turn on you and you slaughter each other *and then* die of starvation.

In many ways, at least as far as we know, the one thing we don't have to worry about on Mars is having to fight our way through hostile natives. Not only did previous migrants face long voyages to uncertain destinations, there was also the likelihood they would have to go to war with whoever they ran into -- hey, let's embark on a trip that's likely fatal simply in the conveyance we have available, to a place we might not have the knowledge or stuff to survive in, and let's do it to steal stuff from people who will fight us to the death to stop us.

Yet humans have been doing it for millennia, despite the risks and the repeated failures. It's part of what makes us human. If that wasn't part of our humanity, we'd still be eating mangoes and dipping sticks into anthills on the edge of the forest and the savanna.

If people can die by Snotnose · 2016-06-13 14:50 · Score: 1

Can we nominate people to be on the mission? Me? No thanks. But I've got a niece that is a complete waste of oxygen who would be perfect for this.

Re:Martian City by 110010001000 · 2016-06-13 14:51 · Score: 1

You are right. Test tube babies are bioengineered humans. The lack of basic science knowledge is the first thing you see in space nutters.

Re:Martian City by thinkwaitfast · 2016-06-13 15:07 · Score: 1

A lead disk, 50m in diameter and 30m thick would have a mass of 6.8x10^6kg and provide a 10^9 reduction in radiation. This could be launched to Mars using ~150 Saturn V rockets.

Worked for Shackleton by Cyberax · 2016-06-13 15:11 · Score: 1

Worked for Shackleton: http://blogs.smithsonianmag.co...

Re:Worked for Shackleton by Michael+Woodhams · 2016-06-13 16:32 · Score: 1

Alas, this appears to be apocryphal. http://msgboard.snopes.com/cgi...

--
Quattuor res in hoc mundo sanctae sunt: libri, liberi, libertas et liberalitas.

I'd be more impressed Mr Musk by argStyopa · 2016-06-13 15:21 · Score: 3, Insightful

....if you started with something like Biosphere 2.

We can't manage a self-sustaining environment that doesn't require CONSTANT maintenance on Earth. To suggest that we'll somehow 'muddle through' doing it 100 million miles away is folly.

"Some people will die" sure, that hasn't caused humans to flinch from trying hard things. And yes, doing hard things costs lives in many cases.

But it's truly a shitty, sociopathic narcissist that is willing to throw away lives to no good end.

--
-Styopa

Re:I'd be more impressed Mr Musk by mustermark · 2016-06-14 05:04 · Score: 1

Or do it under the ocean. What happened to the ocean floor habitats that 1950s promised us?
Re:I'd be more impressed Mr Musk by argStyopa · 2016-06-15 01:11 · Score: 1

Nuclear subs go on tour for month, not multiple years. Not to mention non-catastrophic breakdowns are things that can be fixed in days - simple resupply from Earth could take years.
Finally, they *constantly* are getting O2 from seawater. Earth air is about 21% O2; Martian air is 0.15% O2 - I'm not sure one could even scrub enough CO2 from the Martian atmosphere on the industrial scale needed to support people.
And while South Polar stations are pretty well sealed against WEATHER, I'm going to say that they're not nearly sealed against AIR, that's a few orders of magnitude more difficult.
I would have to say that you're very much trivializing the massive technical difficulties involved in a Martian base 100 million miles from Earth.

--
-Styopa

Good.... by beheaderaswp · 2016-06-13 15:35 · Score: 4, Insightful

Finally someone is going to push us off this rock.

We stopped space exploration in the 1970s and never really returned. It's about time to start doing amazing things again.

Yes- people are going to die. And those who take the risk will understand the possible sacrifice for pushing our species forward.

Thank you in advance.

--
Another consultant who stuck it out.

"We are the Priests, of the Temples of Syrinx..."

Re:Good.... by drsquare · 2016-06-14 01:53 · Score: 2

We stopped space exploration in the 1970s
No, we stopped manned space exploration, when we realised a probe could do so much more for far less cost and risk. The Apollo program existed purely for national propaganda.
Re:Good.... by Midas+Beurling · 2016-06-14 16:38 · Score: 1

> Finally someone is going to push us off this rock.
What do you mean "us"? The near-totality of "us" (over 7 billion of "us") will be staying right here on Earth for all of the foreseeable future.
> We stopped space exploration in the 1970s and never really returned.
Nonsense. Probes and rovers *continued* "space exploration" since then.
> It's about time to start doing amazing things again.
Nonsense. It's about time we invested *those* public funds to help address our pressing and practical problems right here on Earth instead.
> ... the possible sacrifice for pushing our species forward.
"Pushing our species forward"? What the hell does *that* mean? Which way is forward? Was developing the Internet going forward? Would curing cancer be going forward?

OK, but by FatdogHaiku · 2016-06-13 15:52 · Score: 1

Page refresh rates are a bitch...

--
You have the right to remain sentient. If you give up the right to remain sentient, you will be elected to public office

Check your source by dbIII · 2016-06-13 16:28 · Score: 1

There were European bees on the second fleet.

Re:Martian City by AK+Marc · 2016-06-13 16:31 · Score: 1

Nobody has died from zero g on the space station yet. You don't understand the biology.

--
Learn to love Alaska

Re:First SpaceX Missions To Mars: 'Dangerous and P by Anonymous Coward · 2016-06-13 17:03 · Score: 1

As far as we know, the one thing we don't have to worry about on Mars is having to fight our way through hostile natives.

You never know...

Re:If a medical doctor announced plans by Opportunist · 2016-06-13 18:18 · Score: 1

One is technically feasible, one ain't.

It's left to the student to find out which is which.

--
We used to have a Bill of Rights. Now, with the rights gone, all we have left is the bill.

Long Term View by ytene · 2016-06-13 19:13 · Score: 2

Musk has said that mankind's long term future lies in colonizing the solar system. Setting up a doomed-to-fail Mars experiment is a good way to discourage people to do that : he's too smart for that.

Expect a first phase consisting of several supply rockets with prefabs, equipment and tools. Expect a degree of heavy duty robotics to help with fabrication. Expect a *lot* of solar panels, plus of course Tesla battery packs... Most of this SpaceX could do today, with the exception maybe the heavy robotics that might be needed. Maybe we could use Waldo's instead.

The real challenge, as you point out, will be if we want to return. Ideally we would need Mars to provide the fuel for that, but we would still need to lift all the processing equipment there in order to prepare it.

But let's be honest: so far Musk has shown a *much* better rate of learning than any nation-state space program. Who would you bet on to get there first?

Re:Long Term View by Kjella · 2016-06-13 23:36 · Score: 1

Musk has said that mankind's long term future lies in colonizing the solar system. Setting up a doomed-to-fail Mars experiment is a good way to discourage people to do that : he's too smart for that.
He's smart, but he could become blinded by how important the colonization is to him and start thinking the ends justifies the means and overestimate the public's willingness to risk lives and underestimate the backlash from dead astronauts or settlers. Not as in doomed to fail, but that his idea of acceptable risk might not be the same as the general public's, which absolutely have the power to shut him down if they feel he's playing fast and loose with human lives. Even if the numbers don't come close to the losses in Iraq or Afghanistan, don't expect people to be rational about it even though this is arguably far more important for the human race.

--
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
Re:Long Term View by Thelasko · 2016-06-14 02:38 · Score: 1

Expect a first phase consisting of several supply rockets with prefabs, equipment and tools. Expect a degree of heavy duty robotics to help with fabrication. Expect a *lot* of solar panels, plus of course Tesla battery packs...

He's stated publicly that he wants to start a 26 month delivery cycle as soon as 2018.

“The basic game plan is that we’re going to send a mission to Mars with every Mars opportunity from 2018 onwards,” he said. Launch windows for Mars missions open every 26 months, with the next opening in the spring of 2018. “We’re establishing cargo flights to Mars that people can count on,” he said. “I think if things go according to plan, we should be able to launch people probably in 2024, with arrival in 2025.”

--
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
Re:Long Term View by ytene · 2016-06-14 07:41 · Score: 1

Thank you for the clarification - I hadn't seen that. Although Musk does struggle to contain his own excitement from time to time... he is not someone to back down from the challenge. Will he deliver by 2025? Don't know. Am I happy that he's even trying? You betcha.

It's odd, isn't it, that in the decades after NASAs Moon Program came to an end, that the Agency became seen as an expensive dinosaur. Musk's approach and SpaceX and their ability to deliver has re-ignited the public's interest in and enthusiasm for space exploration. Are their other things we could and should be working on? Yes, of course. But the sheer scale of ambition of a space program captures imagination in a way that many other projects simply can't hope to match.

And once we get kids hooked on the STEM principles, we can always encourage them to diversify into other things.
Re:Long Term View by ytene · 2016-06-14 07:46 · Score: 1

I agree with you. But I think your mention of Afghanistan and Iraq is crucial for a different reason. Personally, whilst I would deeply, deeply regret the loss of life in a space program, it seems to me to be far less disagreeable to suffer loss in the pursuit of science and achievements for all mankind than it does to lose life in trying to blow the sh1t out of each-other over tired political idealogies and myopic dogmas. As long as science doesn't discard or disrespect life by subjecting people to unacceptable risks, that is.

Let me put it to you a slightly different way... Suppose you were the President of the United States [hey, congrats on that, by the way...] and I offered to give you say $250 Billion dollars. You could either spend it on the science, technology and development to set up a manned colony on Mars, or you could spend it prosecuting wars in say Afghanistan and Iraq. Your choice. What would you choose?

I'm kinda hoping you'd go for the first first choice...
Re:Long Term View by slew · 2016-06-14 10:27 · Score: 1

Even if the numbers don't come close to the losses in Iraq or Afghanistan, don't expect people to be rational about it even though this is arguably far more important for the human race.
If we are talking about "rationality"...
Odds of a person dying in US: 821.5 deaths/100,000 people/1 year = 0.82%/year (of course includes infant and death by old age)
Odds of troop dying in WW2: 400,000 deaths/16,000,000 troops/6 years = 0.4%/year
Odds of US soldier dying in Iraq: 2000 deaths/150,000 troops/3 years = 0.4%/year
Odds of miner dying in coal mine: 276 deaths/1,286,120 miners/10 years = 0.2%/year (only includes the recent "safer" years)
Odds of 25-34yo dying in US: 102.2 deaths/100,000 people/1 year = 0.1%/year (more representative of troop ages)
Odds of dying in space: 22 deaths/1228 people-flights/48271 people-days/356 days = 0.01%/year (counting time actually spent in space, not including expected mission duration)
I suspect that any mars mission will suffer significantly worse loss rates (and won't be close) than any of these other things.

Re:nothing on Mars by thinkwaitfast · 2016-06-13 19:31 · Score: 1

elsewhere in another thread that you're a rocket scientist? Hmmmm...

Nothing escapes you :)

Re:First SpaceX Missions To Mars: 'Dangerous and P by thinkwaitfast · 2016-06-13 19:46 · Score: 2

a lot like Mars

Not remotely close. In the worst of conditions in Iceland, I could walk around for minutes totally naked in the worst conditions, go back inside, dink some hot cocoa and be ready to do it again in a few hours. Mars, you'll be unconscious in 12 seconds if you space suit springs a leak and dead in 4 minutes. Iceland wait a few hours until the storm goes away, put on a heavy coat and spend a day out ice fishing. Mars, pour some hot water onto you freeze dried lasagna while looking out the window.

Re:Martian City by scatbomb · 2016-06-13 19:46 · Score: 1

I think the more important question is "why do we want people living on Mars?"

Mars has very few of the resources needed to support human life. People living there will basically be a burden for people on Earth to supply with food, equipment, chemical energy, etc. All that, and you can only depart for it twice per year. If anything goes wrong between, oh well.

As a staging area for mining comets (if that's the idea) the moon makes more sense than Mars since it is out of Earth's gravity, has very little of it's own gravity (much less than Mars even) and can be reached in a few days.

I guess the whole hype surrounding Mars is more out of "coolness" than actual usefullness? Correct me if I'm missing something here.

Re:venus is more reasonable by thinkwaitfast · 2016-06-13 19:52 · Score: 1

lower escape velocity than Mars because you don't have to land on the surface

That has nothing to do with escape velocity which is sqrt(2GM/r).

The price of greed and ambition by tgv · 2016-06-13 21:27 · Score: 1

Nice to send people to their death for nothing. Really nice.

Re:The price of greed and ambition by ytene · 2016-06-13 23:17 · Score: 3, Interesting

Um, "to send people"?

Would that require some form of conscription or force-against-wishes type of arrangement? I ask because I wonder if you would be happy or happier if everyone attempting a trip to Mars was completely and undeniably a volunteer? Would that make a difference given your concern?

Or do you believe that even volunteers would be attempting the trip due to some kind of false hope or duplicitous misdirection? Just trying to better understand your underlying concern...
Re:The price of greed and ambition by tgv · 2016-06-14 04:34 · Score: 1

NASA took great care in safety. They failed often, and it was dangerous, but the attitude was that human life was more important than the mission. This statement seems to go in another direction.
There are always volunteers. That doesn't make it right to use them in order to allow you to cut corners.
Re:The price of greed and ambition by ytene · 2016-06-14 07:36 · Score: 1

OK, that's entirely fair. I didn't understand the previously expressed viewpoint, and I would completely agree with you if anyone capitalised on the excitement regarding a Mars mission to knowingly place volunteers in a position of danger. That would be callous and, IMHO, tantamount to murder.

But in everything that we've seen from Elon Musk and SpaceX so far, there is no evidence whatsoever to suggest that such an approach would be acceptable. In my earlier post I suggested that long-term survival on Mars is going to require quite a delivery of equipment and material, which itself would require multiple rockets and landing attempts. Now, whilst it would be possible to put a large amount in a single trans-shipment, risk management suggests that it might be better to send multiple rockets and to aim to land them in the same way that he has so successfully returned 1st stages to "Of Course I Still Love You" in the Atlantic.

I can only hope - obviously I have nothing more to go on that opinion - that Musk would not attempt a human transfer to Mars until he felt confident that the crew would stand a good chance of survival. After all, if his attitude was any less risk averse, surely he'd be flying a crew in the Dragon capsule by now, right?

I guess at the end of the day we'll just have to wait for a serious announcement of readiness and, at that point, take an informed view of the risks of such a mission... in exactly the same way that we would hope a potential crew would.

It's a pretty cool time to be alive. Although I'd kinda like someone to invent hyperdrives already... :)
Re:The price of greed and ambition by tgv · 2016-06-14 17:12 · Score: 1

I hope so too, although I think humanity isn't quite ready for the hyperdrive yet.

Robert Heinlein story by Bruce66423 · 2016-06-13 21:41 · Score: 3, Interesting

In one of his stories - and I can't remember which - Heinlein discussed an engineer project whose budget was complete with an estimate of the number of people who would be killed in its achievement. His project manager comments that this item isn't included in the public budget, for political reasons! This realistic assessment of the tendency for death to occur was very thought provoking; we SHOULD be honest about risk - instead terrorism is treated as disproportionately terrible, whilst antibiotic resistance, which is vastly more seriously, is labelled as potentially dangerous as terrorism to get people's attention.

http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/heal...

Sometimes the fact that 'if voting could change things, it wouldn't be allowed', should be taken as a comfort.

Re:First SpaceX Missions To Mars: 'Dangerous and P by houghi · 2016-06-13 21:42 · Score: 1

Compared to even Norway, Iceland was a lot like Mars.

I guess you are talking about Greenland that was named that way for marketing purposes.

--
Don't fight for your country, if your country does not fight for you.

Re:First SpaceX Missions To Mars: 'Dangerous and P by angel'o'sphere · 2016-06-13 23:13 · Score: 1

Totally hostile climate, vast stretches of it totally unsuitable for human habitation
You have to see that in context: growing grain might be tricky. Besides that the climate on Icelands is very friendly.
The winter temperature barely touches zero degrees.
As soon as they mainly lived from fishing and sheep they where fine.

--
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.

Re:History repeats itself by ytene · 2016-06-13 23:14 · Score: 1

I guess that when you mention the genocide that took place when Europeans reached what is now the United States, the you refer to the treatment of the Native American Indians?

Two observations to make on that front:-
First, that our society today is far, far removed from the one that existed then. Our treatment of fellow human beings is still far from perfect, but way, *way* better than we had then...
Secondly, the genocide was against a people already native when the Europeans arrived. For us to repeat a similar genocide on Mars, wouldn't there have to be a Martian civilisation there to fall victim to such an act? As best as I'm aware, there is no life on Mars...

Sincerely not trying to troll you here, but just to better understand the concern you raise...

Re: I volunteer by dcw3 · 2016-06-13 23:16 · Score: 1

I'm not a scfi fan, I'm an electrical engineer who loves code so not completely useless :). Can't argue the delusions bit though.

Code can be written remotely, and by less expensive drones than you.

--
Just another day in Paradise

Re:First SpaceX Missions To Mars: 'Dangerous and P by angel'o'sphere · 2016-06-13 23:18 · Score: 1

Mars, you'll be unconscious in 12 seconds if you space suit springs a leak and dead in 4 minutes.
You are likely not even unconscious after 4 minutes. Why would you?
A normal person without any training easy holds the breath 90 to 120 seconds.
And after exhaling and not being able to inhale you don't drop unconcious imediatly, why would you?
If you prepare for it like a diver, you easy can live in complete vacuum, naked for minutes. You would probably bleed throuh nose and ears etc ... And Mars has no vacuum. Air presure is a little bit lower than on the tip of Mount Everest. In the deep chasms it should be close or above 1/3rd of earths. Unfortunately the air is mostly CO2, though.

--
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.

Re:First SpaceX Missions To Mars: 'Dangerous and P by angel'o'sphere · 2016-06-13 23:20 · Score: 2

I guess you are talking about Greenland that was named that way for marketing purposes.
No it was not.
It was discovered during the medival warm period. The south part of Greenland was like today, probably even greener and warmer. You could grow potatoes there and grain, as we do in our times due to AGW *again*

However you are right, Icelands at that time (and today) are not particular cold due to the gulf stream. However large areas are desert like.

--
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.

Re:First SpaceX Missions To Mars: 'Dangerous and P by drsquare · 2016-06-14 01:48 · Score: 1

Air pressure on Mars is 0.5% of Earth. You can't compare Mars to Iceland at all, the latter could support human life the same as Norway, you could grow food, breath the air, drink from the rivers, hunt the animals. A Mars colony would be totally dependent on supplies from Earth for decades if not centuries, and a single mistake or technical problem would kill everyone instantly.

Re:First SpaceX Missions To Mars: 'Dangerous and P by rvw · 2016-06-14 02:02 · Score: 1

a lot like Mars

Not remotely close. In the worst of conditions in Iceland, I could walk around for minutes totally naked in the worst conditions, go back inside, dink some hot cocoa and be ready to do it again in a few hours. Mars, you'll be unconscious in 12 seconds if you space suit springs a leak and dead in 4 minutes. Iceland wait a few hours until the storm goes away, put on a heavy coat and spend a day out ice fishing. Mars, pour some hot water onto you freeze dried lasagna while looking out the window.

The trip to Iceland back then was as risky as it goes. Navigation was difficult, a storm could sink the ship, disease could not be cured. No steel boats, just wood and sail.

Plus you never knew what happened to the other crews. Did they survive or not? They could have a happy life, but no communication back to the motherland. Missing Iceland and ending up in Greenland without knowing it - totally possible.

Re: I volunteer by Rei · 2016-06-14 03:09 · Score: 1

If one's talking about an actual colony, I.e. something whose goal involves maintaining itself and expanding using locally-produced materials, it's electricians needed more than electrical engineers. People with fabrication skills really are the most critical part. You want people who know their way around a TIG welder, people who can do a composite layup right the first time, people who can run and maintain a wide variety of metal shaping and plastic forming tools, people adept with an excavator, etc. The sort of jobs that a lot of nerds look down on - "builders" ;) You also need one or more "homesteader" type positions to handle cooking, cleaning, food processing from raw staples, soapmaking, paper making, sewing, and other "primitive" skills - not to mention harvesting crops (I know it's a sci-fi nerd staple that robots will do everything for people off-world, but in the real world, developing reliable robotic systems for complex tasks in alien environments is extremely expensive, and generally involves major tradeoffs between 1) throughput, 2) task adaptability, and 3) reliability - and accidents could potentially prove fatal)

There are a couple scientific fields that will require on-hand experience, mind you. Medicine and botany come to mind - the former because the time delay is too great for effective telemedicine in acute cases (including for livestock, when that occurs), and the latter because optimizing harvests is going to take a lot of hands-on experimentation and inspection. And of course you need geologists and the like for whatever scientific exploration you're tasked with. A chemist would also be important, both for assisting the local scientific work as well as doing small-scale batch production of chemicals for both industrial and domestic uses.

So there are a variety of jobs needed. But I really don't see how an electrical engineer fits in on-world (now, *off-world*, people like you would be critical).

Then again... how good are you at sewing? Can you pick tomatoes quickly in a cumbersome suit? How accurately can you cut a piece of aluminum with a torch? ;)

--
Monkeywrench Ex Machina.

It will never be safe and by pjv936 · 2016-06-14 03:55 · Score: 1

yes people will die. If you review the history of spaceflight you will see that people died. It comes with the territory.

robots first by SkunkPussy · 2016-06-14 05:04 · Score: 1

Surely we shouldn't even consider sending people over until we've had self-supporting robots over them for 10+ years setting up industry or whatever's necessary to sustain life without dependence on supplies from earth.

--
SURELY NOT!!!!!

Do you think before replying? by DerekLyons · 2016-06-14 05:57 · Score: 1

What makes you think I'm talking about the transporter? The Dragon alone is much larger than anything we've ever landed.

It doesn't work that way. by DerekLyons · 2016-06-14 06:06 · Score: 1

The Falcon 9's first stage weight is estimated to be about 25 tons when empty. That's the stage that returns to Earth (or sea) and lands.

The Falcon can return to Earth and land because there is sufficient atmospheric drag to slow it down to the point where a modest amount of delta-V will allow it land safely. On Mars, there isn't sufficient atmosphere to do so.

That's the basic problem with Mars - the gravity is too high to land propulsively, and the atmosphere is too thin to land using solely aerodynamic drag.

Liability by galabar · 2016-06-14 06:08 · Score: 1

I don't think there is a high enough mountain of paper work that can be signed to eliminate SpaceXs liability. We *should* be able to make such agreements, but I don't think we can.

Re:Martian City by guruevi · 2016-06-14 07:33 · Score: 1

And what would you call them if not engineered? Do babies grow outside of the womb naturally?

--
Custom electronics and digital signage for your business: www.evcircuits.com

Re:First SpaceX Missions To Mars: 'Dangerous and P by crunchygranola · 2016-06-14 08:25 · Score: 2

Mars, you'll be unconscious in 12 seconds if you space suit springs a leak and dead in 4 minutes. You are likely not even unconscious after 4 minutes. Why would you? A normal person without any training easy holds the breath 90 to 120 seconds. And after exhaling and not being able to inhale you don't drop unconcious imediatly, why would you? If you prepare for it like a diver, you easy can live in complete vacuum, naked for minutes. You would probably bleed throuh nose and ears etc ...

Why would you? Because in a vacuum your respiratory and circulatory system work in reverse. Your blood delivers partly oxygenated hemoglobin to your lungs, where the zero partial pressure of oxygen there strips it out and you exhale the oxygen.

Your skepticism on this is bizarre since this is a very well studied and understood situation that, believe it or not, is very important here on Earth. You see decompression of aircraft at high altitude is the same thing and happens accidentally with some regularity. In fact "12 seconds of consciousness" is really unrealistically long it is actually 6 to 9 seconds of useful consciousness.

... And Mars has no vacuum. Air presure is a little bit lower than on the tip of Mount Everest. In the deep chasms it should be close or above 1/3rd of earths. Unfortunately the air is mostly CO2, though.

The facts are weak with this one. No wonder he is so confused. The densest atmosphere on Mars is 11.5 millibars at Hellas Planetia (a deep canyon). This is the same pressure as Earth at 99,000 feet. The air pressure at the top of Sagarmatha (Mount Everest) is 337 millibars, thirty times higher.

--
Second class citizen of the New Gilded Age

Re:Martian City by slew · 2016-06-14 09:03 · Score: 1

Nobody has died from zero g on the space station yet. You don't understand the biology.

Maybe nobody died yet, but many experience severe loss of vision acuity and early symptoms of retinal issues which could lead to retinal detachment and permanent blindness... And *nobody* understands the biology behind this yet...

Re:Martian City by AK+Marc · 2016-06-14 09:33 · Score: 1

Except you and the troll that asserts 0g is necessarily fatal.

--
Learn to love Alaska

I'd go. by Pezbian · 2016-06-14 10:02 · Score: 1

Death doesn't scare me and I have a sense of adventure. Contributing to the Greater Good would be an honor.

--
In a world of the blind, the one-eyed man is king--and the two-eyed man is a heretic.

Re:First SpaceX Missions To Mars: 'Dangerous and P by swb · 2016-06-14 10:22 · Score: 1

You're assuming there *is* a warm and cozy inside filled with hot cocoa or even the fuel to make it hot. One of the challenges of Iceland and moreso Greenland was a lack of trees for building materials and fuel.

Falling into freezing water can kill you in two minutes, and even if it doesn't immediately kill you, you might drown because you can't move your muscles adequately to swim.

Obviously the lack of atmosphere on Mars is a serious problem, but because it's severe doesn't make the cold and barren new landscape faced by explorers in the 9th century not dangerous, especially when they only had what they brought with them in small boats over hundreds of miles of open ocean. "Oops, this sucks, let's go back now" wasn't really an option for them, either.

Re:First SpaceX Missions To Mars: 'Dangerous and P by Midas+Beurling · 2016-06-14 16:48 · Score: 1

> ... humans have been doing it for millennia ... It's part of what makes us human.

Nonsense. All those past explorations were for practical purposes -- to own land, to find new trades routes, etc.

Going to Mars at this time in our history would serve absolutely no practical purpose for humanity whatsoever. It would not help us to address a single pressing or practical problem here on Earth in the foreseeable future. Such missions should not be publicly funded at this time (Musk and SpaceX would not be paying for this mission out of their pockets).

Public funds should instead be spent to help address our pressing and practical problems here on Earth in the foreseeable future.

Uranus... by zawarski · 2016-06-14 19:45 · Score: 1

nuff said.

Re:First SpaceX Missions To Mars: 'Dangerous and P by swb · 2016-06-14 23:08 · Score: 1

I think you overstate the practical value of past expansions and completely understate the moral weight of such expansions in light of the fact that the places all but the most primitive stone age migrations entered were already occupied by someone else.

Most of Rome's territorial expansions were purely conquest for the benefit of its ruling class -- the subjugation of foreign peoples, expropriating their wealth and enslaving their populations.

The Vikings were even worse in this regard. While the Romans were often inclined to merely extract tribute and extend political dominance, the Vikings for the most part were motivated solely for plunder and often just killed everyone they found and took what treasure they could carry, with little practical benefit for their home countries and without any long-term settlement. To the extent that the Vikings expanded their territory to "new" lands, it mostly Greenland and Iceland, and the Greenland expansion ultimately failed. In the British Isles, by the time they got around to doing anything like "settling" they had largely been assimilated into the existing Celtic and Anglo-Saxon cultures they invaded.

Travel to Mars is less about its immediate practical value and much more about its secondary value in learning what it takes to get there and explore. The secondary value of the technologies and know-how of making this work will produce profound benefits for things like sustainable energy and medicine here on Earth, and without any of the moral implications of military conquest.

Re:First SpaceX Missions To Mars: 'Dangerous and P by Midas+Beurling · 2016-06-15 04:13 · Score: 1

> I think you overstate the practical value of past expansions ...

Not really.

> ... the places all but the most primitive stone age migrations entered were already occupied by someone else.

Doesn't matter. The explorers still set out for *practical purposes*.

> Most of Rome's territorial expansions were purely conquest for the benefit of its ruling class -- the subjugation of foreign peoples, expropriating their wealth and enslaving their populations.

Thus for *practical purposes*.

> ... the Vikings for the most part were motivated solely for plunder ...

They carried that out *for immediate practical purposes*.

> ... with little practical benefit for their home countries and without any long-term settlement.

They carried out their raids for the *practical purpose* of plunder. The items plundered certainly benefited whomever financed/supported their raids.

> Travel to Mars is less about its immediate practical value and much more about its secondary value in learning what it takes to get there and explore.

That's a very weak justification for the spending of billions in public funds. We can get those very same kinds of benefits by addressing our pressing and practical problems right here on Earth.

> The secondary value of the technologies and know-how of making this work will produce profound benefits for things like sustainable energy and medicine here on Earth ...

We don't need to go to Mars for that. We can simply research and develop those technologies right here on Earth.

Re:First SpaceX Missions To Mars: 'Dangerous and P by angel'o'sphere · 2016-06-15 04:37 · Score: 1

The sunrise and the sunset for instance.

The idea to make it habitable (would not call it "terraforming" as it will be very un-terra-like afterwards).

And for me, my "day rythm" is longer than 24h, never really checked wat my natural rythm would be, I asume between 26h and 28h, and Mars at least offers me 24:43 :D

--
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.

Re:First SpaceX Missions To Mars: 'Dangerous and P by angel'o'sphere · 2016-06-15 04:44 · Score: 1

Thanks for the info, that makles sense.

However you get unconscious after exhaling. But not as long as you hold your breath.

Or what exctly would be a reason for that?

That 11.5 millibars was supposed to be on "null" not in a canyon. Interesting, must have remembered something wrong then.

--
Cost free eBook I read (by iBook/Kobo/Amazon/ObookO/Gutenberg etc.): "The Green Odyssey" by Philip Jose Farmer.

Re:First SpaceX Missions To Mars: 'Dangerous and P by swb · 2016-06-15 06:04 · Score: 1

That's a very weak justification for the spending of billions in public funds.

And what exactly do you think it cost to send a half-dozen legions off to expand Rome's borders and who do you think actually benefited from it? Rome was a spoils system, where the aristocrat who was at the top got the state to fund their army and then kept the spoils for themselves. It was the very definition of using state funds for personal enrichment. It makes Lockheed Martin look like a charity.

We don't need to go to Mars for that. We can simply research and develop those technologies right here on Earth.

Except we won't, because there will be no profit-driven motive to develop many of them. The space program largely been driven to solve problems related to space travel but whose solutions turn out to have significant applications on Earth.

Re:nothing on Mars by NicknameUnavailable · 2016-06-15 13:00 · Score: 1

What's the point of colonization?

Seriously? In the entire universe the only place we know there to be life is Earth. All it takes is 1 asteroid and the universe goes from being a beautiful vast thing to nothingness from all we can tell at the moment. To say nothing of the survival of she species and the other species we can take with us elsewhere, sentience is the most important thing in the universe because without it nothing is capable of having importance. If not preserving it and working to ensure failsafes exist to keep it going isn't a crime against Humanity nothing is.

They push the human race forward by GPS+Pilot · 2016-06-23 12:36 · Score: 1

https://www.youtube.com/watch?...

--
That that is is that that that that is not is not.

Slashdot Mirror

First SpaceX Missions To Mars: 'Dangerous and Probably People Will Die' (arstechnica.com)

233 of 412 comments (clear)