Slashdot Mirror
Elon Musk: First Humans Who Journey To Mars Must 'Be Prepared To Die' (theverge.com)
At a conference yesterday, Elon Musk outlined his company SpaceX's plan to send humans to Mars. The vehicle is called the Interplanetary Transport System and it is capable of carrying 100 tons of cargo (people and supplies). Musk added that this rocket ship could take people to Mars in just 80 days. But he also reminded that the first batch of people who are brave enough to go to Mars should be well aware that they are almost certainly going to die. The Verge adds:During the Q&A session that followed, the question inevitably came up: what sort of person does Musk think will volunteer to get strapped to that big rocket and fired toward the Red Planet? "Who should these people be, carrying the light of humanity to Mars for all of us?" an audience member asked. "I think the first journeys to Mars will be really very dangerous," answered Musk. "The risk of fatality will be high. There's just no way around it." The journey itself would take around 80 days, according to the plan and ideas that Musk put forward. "Are you prepared to die? If that's okay, then you're a candidate for going," he added. But Musk didn't want to get stuck talking about the risks and immense danger. "This is less about who goes there first... the thing that really matters is making a self-sustaining civilization on Mars as fast as possible. This is different than Apollo. This is really about minimizing existential risk and having a tremendous sense of adventure," he said.
We're all going to die.
I don't read your sig. Why are you reading mine?
Basement on Earth, basement on Mars, the view's all the same...
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
The fact of the matter is he's right. And even if they do make the trip back, the probability that they will have crippling health issues is high. Exploring any frontier was dangerous throughout human history.
Out of several tens of billions of humans, only a fraction have not yet died, and of those who died, only a small percent of disputed cases indicate recovery.
I nominate Congress to go on the first voyage. This would be the best use of taxpayer money ever.
....could we not try for the Moon first? I think that would make a little more sense and then once we have been more successful with lunar landings and possibly some form of colonization, we could move on to Mars and repeating the process.
Ill respect a guy who can fail and ask for help over a guy who is successful without failure. The latter is always hiding something.
Someone please take the Kool Aid away from this guy. His rocket just blew up recently and was asking for help in figuring out why...
And what have you done that is so amazing that we should care about your opinion? The guy has one rocket blow up and you proclaim him to be some kind of failure. Go out and find some new perspective. It seems you lost yours somewhere.
how meany people on death row will take this?
And they figured out why. If it works, great.
the major advances in civilization are processes which all but wreck the societies in which they occur - A.N. White
At least I'd get away from all the Elon Musk stories.
Confucius say, "Find worm in apple - bad. Find half a worm - worse."
Humans have precedent for sending out vessels filled with people who have a good chance of dying on their journey.
Is it just my observation, or are there way too many stupid people in the world?
You go first.
Challenge accepted:
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
What is the difference if you are not prepared? Will you fail at it?
When things get complex, multiply by the complex conjugate.
You know why your rocket didn't blew up?
That's because you never had a rocket to begin with.
How about we first master having a self-sustaining civilization on Earth?
The first Mars colony is always wiped out. It's the second one that thrives -- after 90% of the colonists are wiped out.
Someone please take the Kool Aid away from this guy. His rocket just blew up recently and was asking for help in figuring out why...
He was asking for evidence (recorded videos, audios, security camera footage), not help.
At this point I'm really wondering why people like you post this sort of thing. I mean, it's not like you have any insight into the situation.
It very much appears that you have an agenda (or an axe to grind), and chose to misrepresent the situation because you think it will add incrementally to whatever goals you have.
What are your goals? How does it benefit *you* to misrepresent what Musk is doing?
I'm constantly surprised by what motivates other people. As in - can never figure out why people do what they do.
(Maybe you shorted some SpaceX stock? No, SpaceX is still a privately held company. Maybe you work at NASA and don't like being shown up? Maybe you work at a competing launch company? Your behaviour is inscrutable.)
They arent concentrating on launching into LEO. We've already figured that one out as you pointed out. They are concentrating on trying to make economical and reusable stages to make spaceflight cheaper. There is no point in spending larger amounts of money on a craft to get to LEO (requires more fuel space for return trip) if there is reasonable risk that it will crash when it tries to land. They are smart enough to realize they need to know how to land first. I'm pretty sure they're smart enough to do the same with the radiation problem before they set out for mars.
Seems like a decent purchase to choose with the only 1-UP we get. Unless you put great stock into 50 years of making profits for someone more connected ("corps are people") then hopefully getting to wither in some retirement crate. Then, sure, spend it on that.
That said, I have doubts that the heroic efforts I just compared to are actually available. Obviously Musk is going to make Mars work (and funding) seem as plausible as he can.
Isn't that also in the Microsoft License Agreement?
Table-ized A.I.
Liability insurance will be a bitch if the company has to guarantee bringing someone back alive.
If your goal is a self-sufficient colony on mars and your serious about it your opening move will not involve sending people there initially because this would be a pointless waste of resources.
It isn't enough to just preposition supplies you need to develop and transport a highly automated industrial base using technology that does not yet exist to create the things people will need to survive.
The solution today is basic research and development not building space buses and telling riders they are probably going to die.
You can't just ignore reality and subscribe to new age planning doesn't matter we don't need to learn how to walk first nonsense because if you do that you will fail.
You've never fixed a bug on a released product while simultaneously developing the next major release?
Products are like sharks. If they aren't constantly moving forward, they're dead.
One of our competitors trademarked the term "hypothesis". From now on, we will call them "boneheaded ideas".
Putting the practical aspects of getting there aside, this is no different than what many of our ancestors did at one time. Saying goodbye to everyone and everything that is familiar for the adventure of the unknown. Yes you will die. Quickly or slowly, in anticipated or unexpected ways.
Many people cannot envision a one way journey but others can. My great grandfather came to the US to join his sons. My great grandmother did not.
Average Intelligence is a Scary Thing
There might be (I don't know for sure) some practical reasons why Mars makes more sense than the moon.
A few random examples I could think of might include:-
Ambient surface temperatures - and the need to power heating/cooling systems
Atmospheric pressure - and the implications that will have on the integrity of structures built by settlers [i.e. stop them popping]
The effect of the local gravity field on the long-term health of the settlers
Atmospheric protection from cosmic radiation
Availability of and ready access to raw materials [such as ice] needed for the generation of oxygen and/or fuel for return journeys
I am not in any way suggesting that it would be wrong to try for a Moon Colony before a Mars Colony, just that we might be missing the point if we base that observation solely on proximity to Earth...
NASA has blown up a whole lot of equipment over the years and gotten a good bunch of people killed while at it, and I don't see you demanding anyone taking Koolaid from them.
Also, to be quite honest, asking for help in figuring out what happened is smart and useful. Not asking for help out of sheer arrogance, on the other hand, is the opposite of smart and useful. They figured out what happened and most likely now know to pay even more attention to it to prevent it from happening again, so, aside from the monetary losses, everything's better than before. Learning from mistakes may be a wholly foreign concept to you, but, thankfully, it's not that to the whole rest of the world.
I like the part in the SpaceX video where the rocket lands, and the door opens on magnificent desolation. This is artistic license. Obviously the material for a habitat would precede the arrival of people.
But yes, a first-try planetary colony won't necessarily work. Getting there is dangerous, and once you're there being able to continue to provide the population with air, water, food, shelter, and energy is going to have significant risks of lethal failures.
Bruce Perens.
So I have this friend with a father who is a Vietnam war hero. When the base was under attack, he would grab the nearest weapon he could get his hands on and run toward the enemy. He won a medal for demonstrating that after the enemy shoots the tail off your helicopter, it is indeed still flyable if you go just go fast enough. Funny thing was, his very successful military career was something of an accident. Before joining the army, when there was nothing at stake and nothing to be gained by it, he would get in trouble by doing some damn fool wild thing. After the umpteenth time the judge finally told him, it's the jail or the military, you choose.
It took a long time for me to understand because I am not like that myself, but some people need high-risk, crazy adventure to thrive. If that is denied to them, they will seize it anyway, however they can. So those people might as well expend that impulse on something socially redeeming, like establishing off-world human colonies, while the rest of us cower here on earth until interplanetary transport is proven safe.
Ceci n'est pas une signature.
Musk is a Space Nutter.
You throw around the phrase "space nutter" as if that actually means something every time an article about Musk is posted. Let it go. If you want to make an evidence based case that going to Mars is not possible then fine. Ad-hominem attacks do not in any way bolster your case. They just make you look like a jerk.
There is no way ANYONE is going to Mars.
If you want to claim that people aren't going to be on Mars in the near future I would agree with you. Any such mission is going to take a while before it happens. If you are going to claim that it is categorically impossible that humans will ever set foot on Mars then you have no evidence to back you up. Present some actual and irrefutable evidence that putting humans on Mars is irreducibly impossible or shut up about it. So far your argument consists of calling anyone who is interested in solving the problem a "space nutter".
The trip alone would kill you with radiation.
And you of course have irrefutable proof not available to the rest of us that there is no possible way to mitigate that problem? Rhetorical question because of course since you don't and we know you don't. It's a known problem with numerous potential solutions. We aren't going to Mars tomorrow. If/when we do try to go it will be among the engineering challenges we face and one of the risks along the way. There is no evidence that it is a problem without any feasible solution given enough research and funding.
This guy is a scam artist and is trying to get taxpayer money to fund it, so he can siphon it off to pay for his other projects.
I'm not sure you know what the word means. Building at last count 4 successful and industry changing companies, three of which have nothing to do with space nor rely on any direct tax dollars, is a peculiar means of scamming people out of tax dollars. Furthermore most of the SpaceX mission list has private companies as clients as of today so basically no tax dollars are at work there either. Additionally SpaceX is actually SAVING tax dollars by reducing the cost to orbit over what NASA can do themselves. You might want to actually use some facts in your argument at some point. They tend to help.
Maybe he/she doesn't like people who make outrageous claims they can't back up. While I have no ax to grind on this particular claim, I can understand being irritated by these kinds of people.
Okay, that's fair.
But if someone is irritated by that sort of behaviour, it would seem (to me) to be more effective to attack the claims, instead of other things. And misrepresenting seems a bit dishonest, and ultimately ineffective.
Is it *really* that obvious that someone could
a) be irritated by Musk,
b) be driven by irritation to attack other things Musk does, and
c) be dishonest enough to misrepresent?
I agree that it could be a reason, but it's a stretch.
Is this motivation/behaviour really that obvious to people?
The best way to get volunteers for this these days would probably be to make it into a reality TV series.
Producer You understand that you'll be locked in with 25 others with no chance of ever returning home and a 0.05% chance of living more than 2 years past landing
Guy: but I'll be on TV, right?
Producer: *sigh*, just sign this disclaimer here, and here.
First ship to be called "GALAXY N-VII"
Table-ized A.I.
Will Mars have high-speed internet???
Why not the moon?
Oh sure, we've been there before... but seriously, if the goal is to build a self-sustaining permanent habitat as soon as possible, then why not build one on the moon first?
I'm not saying that we shouldn't go to Mars eventually, but I think talking about it before we've even started to seriously talk about colonizing the lunar surface, let alone doing it, is really putting the cart before the horse.
At the very least, the moon is less than a hundredth as far. Why do the people who propose this always refuse to even try to walk before they want to run?
File under 'M' for 'Manic ranting'
The first Mars colony is always wiped out. It's the second one that thrives -- after 90% of the colonists are wiped out.
So what you're saying is that Mars is a VC firm and the colonies are startups?
Real lawyers write in C++
Plenty of people died colonizing the Americas. Didn't stop more coming and keep trying hoping they would make it a success.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
Astronauts have to be prepared to die. People who sailed to America had to be prepared to die. Explorers in general have to be prepared to die. So what? It would be newsworthy if he said such people would be 100% safe (because that would mean either he had amazing technology, or he turned into a lying jerk).
Add to that: a greater variety of minerals. Mining probably more fruitful. I think gravity is the biggest one though. Not just for health, but it will feel a bit more normal than the moon.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
There be gold in them there craters.
"That's the way to do it" - Punch
This shouldn't surprise anyone. Explorers have been doing since the first "man" left Africa. When you are going where no man has gone before, the prospect of dying there is a real possibility.
Especially when space travel is involved. Armstrong and Aldrin actually had pretty low chances to return from the moon. They actually expected they would die there. That didn't stop them from going.
When boldly going where no one has gone before, death is always a possibility. Just let some one else wear the red shirt. Why tempt fate?
Supporting World Peace Through Nuclear Pacification
After having a "DOH" moment, I realized that I was thinking of GEO not LEO. And come to find out, they have launched multiple satellites into LEO as well as one into GEO
Rather than sending our criminals to prison for $50k/year until they die, if it's only $200k to send them to Mars, let's do that instead. I imagine a MadMax/Total Recall world would be the result, making journeys to Mars even more dangerous / thrilling.
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
Take the red pill, Neo.
Remember kids, if you're not paying for the service, YOU ARE THE PRODUCT THAT IS BEING SOLD.
The troll persists because people keep feeding him.
Honestly, I don't know what has to be wrong in a person's life for them to feel the need to spend their time acting like that. But it's the case for some people. I hope that whatever is wrong, things turn around for them.
Everybody point at the libertarian and laugh.
I'd heard that prior to the explosion there was a guy wandering around the launch pad asking if people had seen his Note 7.
Was the first Arctic traversal a government mission?
How about the first summit of Mount Everest?
How about the first flight?
Nope.
Either private enterprise or not-for-profit groups.
Government does little in the way of firsts as they are bound by health and safety laws and sending people on fact-gathering missions is generally a waste of money. Technically the moon missions would come under military, even then, wouldn't they?
Don't wait for your government to be the first to cross the Atlantic or swim the English Channel. It ain't going to happen.
To quote XKCD: "For Man has earned his right to hold this planet against all comers, by virtue of occasionally producing someone totally batshit insane."
Maybe he/she doesn't like people who make outrageous claims they can't back up.
That's a peculiar stance given that Musk has largely backed up most of his claims with pretty good results. Sure he has missed a step here and there but by and large he's done what he has set out to do to date. He's proposed some pretty audacious ideas but so far his track record is absurdly good considering the difficulty of what he has attempted thus far. Some reasonable skepticism is fine but it's hard to argue that the guy doesn't produce.
The problem with Venus is that, even after you seed the atmosphere with bacteria or whatever to turn the CO2 into O2, you have to deal with the O2 spending a billion years oxidizing everything before it starts to accumulate.
So he's going to use same slogan for the mission to Mars as for the self driving Tesla?
I'm an American. I love this country and the freedoms that we used to have.
pretty good odds, if he goes, Elon Musk will be the first murder on Mars.
the preceding comment is my own and in no way reflects the opinion of the Joint Chiefs of Staff
Being prepared for the possibility of death is a suicidal streak? So, every soldier and explorer in the history of the world has been suicidal?
I think it would be at least as honest to say that such people simply need to recognize a goal as being worth spending their life on, if necessary, rather than remaining in the comfortable delusion of immortality that many people wrap themselves in, some even unto their deathbed.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Except the moon is actually a far more difficult challenge to reach self-sustainability, and only a little closer in terms of shipping costs.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
You mean they'll all be clones of Count Rugen?
Risk is definitely part of the game. Even after the Nth one of these things takes off headed towards Mars and there's a thriving self sustained colony on Mars, something is still going to go wrong. Despite how safe we make airline travel, planes are still going to crash. Even if you cower in your basement there's a non zero chance you're going to die of CO2 poisoning.
My expectation is by the time the first colonists land on Mars, there will have been numerous autonomous missions that have setup methane and oxygen plants as well as metric tons of MRE's. That still doesn't mitigate the danger of half way to Mars your ship gets zorched by a CME. Or upon decent unbenounced to the crew a micrometeor has cracked the PICA heat shield and everybody on the surface is treated to a brilliant light show as a 100t of cargo and 100 people get sprayed across the martian sky. Without shielding in the MCT or on the colony on Mars what's your daily radiation exposure going to be? What number of people after spending 80 days weightless will land on Mars only to have their hearts give out, or that slight embolism that got stressed during take off finally pops?
I'm completely fine with risk, the question that needs to be asked is what the risk factor is going to be. Unfortunately, we can model this problem all we want, but people will still have to go do it and see what happens. I know before I'm too old of a man, they'll be a monument to the brave pioneers of colonization who gave their lives.
Yes Francis, the world has gone crazy.
You are perfectly right, sir.
At the pole there is air, and fishes, and penguins to eat. Life must be terrifyingly hard, but you still have the essentials.
And still nobody wants to settle there.
Indeed, when there'll be no room left at the poles, then maybe the next worst place will be Mars.
Now, before that, a billionaire can definitely play with sillies, even killing them legally...
Herve S.
I strongly suspect the Binary Boy is the new Doc Ruby - a trolling account for a regular /. poster. He seems to take the contentious, emotionally provocative point of view on too many issues to be legit.
Socialism: a lie told by totalitarians and believed by fools.
Iñigo Montoya
Excellent immortal reference + FTFY.
Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
Mars has more than double the gravity of the Moon. .38G as opposed to .165G. That makes Mars a more suitable environment for human biology.
I'm not sure how much this matters, but it's probably a factor.
Government does little in the way of firsts as they are bound by health and safety laws and sending people on fact-gathering missions is generally a waste of money. Technically the moon missions would come under military, even then, wouldn't they?
Technically, no they wouldn't as NASA is a civilian agency operating outside the chain of command. In every other respect, yes it was the military backing it and funding it.
Live today, because you never know what tomorrow brings
The problem is that on earth, for now, that technology would be a solution without a problem (I know, *for now*). The technology for space exploration has largely been adapted as a result of space travel successes solving problems that we didn't know we had here.
Google around, there's tons of safety, sustainability, health, etc technology that was specifically designed for space travel issues adapted to earth usage.
A successful colonization of a planet like mars would have a profound affect on the minds of the world because the lessons learned there will proof of concept true sustainability (without a net).
Instead "Elon Musk plans to send 100 people to Mars" it should be "Elon Musk plans most expensive method to kill 100 people"
a little closer in terms of shipping costs
According to this animation, the distances to the moon and mars are 3k and 428k pixels away, respectively. Do you consider that a 100 times bigger distance isn't an issue? Is the cost of doing something 1 day the same than doing it during 100 days? And what about the potential problems? Same likelihood in both scenarios? And what about delays, need for help or equivalent? Everything the same? The results (the costs) are identical within a 100 times range? I don't think so.
Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
"Life needs to be more than just solving problems every day. You need to wake up and be excited about the future, and be inspired, and want to live."
Which is exactly why I wouldn't want to go on a suicidal mission like that seeing as you'll most certainly die! There are 1000 ways to be excited and inspired here.
We're all going to die.
Of course, its just that being involved in colonization makes it significantly more likely to be in one's near future.
Colonization is dangerous, a large percentage of colonists die. Consider US history, Roanoke, Jamestown, Massachusetts Bay. And that was in an environment where it was relatively easy to live off the land. Technology can help in that you can bring such an "environment" with you but it will never be safe for that first group because like the aforementioned, we will likely have to learn the hard way what scientific, engineering and practical things had been overlooked despite our best efforts. This will be true for a private venture or a large scale government endeavor.
Many deaths among early explorers and colonists is not a new concept. That has and will always be something volunteers need to be OK with.
My life is the most precious thing I have or will ever have. Many billionaires would give every dime they own to purchase just one more year of life. I would not ever give it up for anyone, for any reason, ever. Nothing is worth that. I don't care if it makes me the last person alive on earth - nobody else is more important than I am. To me, at least.
Then you are a freeloader. What makes society work is the willingness to make a sacrifice for a stranger because it strengthens the group (the country in many's mind). It creates a culture where your offspring will be protected by those who are not blood relatives. Without that a society will collapse, your offspring will be at greater risk.
I guess everyone here doesn't remember George Bush talking about missions to Mars and being a laughing stock? Musk says it and every slappy on here has a raging hardon about it. I don't like either of them, but I find it funny that the hypocrisy of it is totally ignored. I understand one has a much better chance of accomplishing it but it still is funny to see the collective cream their jeans for their messiah.
They may have a waiting line of people wanting to go ;)
Except Mars does not have a magnetic shield like earth does. Radiation is going to be an issue if you want to live there and breed there. Moon also has this issue so neither provides the radiation shielding needed for humans.
Oh, it's Slashdot. That should explain it. But beyond that....
You don't have to go. You don't need to participate. You can come up with thousands of reasons why no one should go, but they matter only to you, personally, and not the slightest to people who DO want to go. Musk has a vision, and this is not Mars One, whose only claim to fame is hitting up its "selectees" for donations. Musk actually has a rocket ship. Call him a nutter if you want, but you'll be staying on shore so it's a moot point.
All I hope is that you will stay out of the way.
How about a moderation of -1 pedantic.
Unless you're in a hurry, distance is largely irrelevant for transporting stuff around the solar system, what matters is specific orbital energies. You typically only burn fuel at the very beginning and end of the voyage, when angular momentum changes per unit fuel are at their maximums, the rest of the time you're just coasting, so there's no added cost for non-perishable cargo. Sending people adds a bit more of a hurry, but it sounds like Musk's plan is currently not to worry about it overmuch, potentially even just using a standard Hohmann transfer orbit between Earth and Mars orbits (optimal fuel usage).
Risks are different, but the Moon is far more challenging, as unlike Mars it has no readily available air or water, and razor-sharp unweathered dust that will make short work of air seals and moving parts.
Space travel really does offer the quintessential perpetual motion machine. In fact, if you're not concerned about transit time at all, you can get from Earth orbit to pretty much anywhere in the solar system almost for free, using the so-called Interplanetary Transport Network of gravitational slingshots and Lagrangian "keyholes" to control your speed and direction while consuming almost no fuel. It can easily take years or decades to get where you're going, but if you're willing to wait the shipping rates can't be beat, and it's been used repeatedly for getting probes into the outer solar system.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
I hope this will help E.M. to get his affairs in order: http://www.santistationerypoint.com/media/catalog/notebook/Large_100_SB_Top_Page_Perf.jpg
There is a difference between a frontier which is habitable but inhabited and a frontier which is not inhabitable without artificial tools. Settling Mars is not like settling the prairie. Its more like settling the bottom of the ocean and we have not managed to do it even though its just 7 miles away. Asking people to go as settlers at this point is just murder. If we were to send professionals to start a terraforming and then send Settlers in 100-200 years once the terraforming has started to take effect it would make sense. Sending settlers without terraforming is just not economically feasible. We would have to evolve a separate species who could live in artificial environments forever.
**Life is too short to be serious**
Your son is your time machine? I can already tell your son is very young and not that developed, yet. All newer parents talk like you. Where they believe their children are basically conduits to their own past. Where you can correct your own past mistakes by having your son not make them. You. Could. Not. Be. More. Wrong. Seriously. Do yourself a favor and stop walking down this path while you still can. Your child will be the most healthy if you treat them like they are *their own person* (which they are)... instead of an extension of yourself.
Love him. Be an influence. Be there for him when he needs you. Be unconditionally supportive (which doesn't mean agreeing with every decision he makes). That's all you need to do.
But please don't make him a prisoner to your own failures, successes, dreams, and fears. Let him develop all of those on his own. He will love you for it -- forever -- and never hold resentment.
Actually there are no penguins anywhere near the south pole, nor any fish -- those are thousands of miles away at the coast. But the main problem is, as you say, that nobody wants to settle there. There's just nothing "cool" about the south pole to anyone but a few scientists. People do want to go to Mars, so despite the much harsher conditions, the chances for settling Mars are somewhat better.
This space intentionally left blank
Unless you're in a hurry, distance is largely irrelevant for transporting stuff around the solar system
This statement is completely wrong. When you are transporting anything (or anyone), the fuel isn't the whole story. Actually, the fuel requirements in very long distances don't even represent the most important expense; mainly when dealing with a much more complex transportation reality.
An extremely simplistic example: when transporting anything here in earth changing the distance from 100 km to over 10000 km would provoke a geometrical increase of costs on all the fronts. Fuel and other issues (e.g., food and accommodation of transporters, insurance costs, etc.) would increase more or less linearly; but planning, coordination, potential problems, required support, etc. are likely to be increased well beyond linearly.
The only advantage in space is that the fuel requirements aren't too relevant, but all the other expenses remain. Additionally, the huge uncertainty which is associated with space and mainly with a never-done-before mission would provoke a beyond-imaginable increase of all the associated standard costs. I am sure that the costs associated with a 100 times longer distance are much higher than 100 times.
Risks are different, but the Moon is far more challenging, as unlike Mars it has no readily available air or water, and razor-sharp unweathered dust that will make short work of air seals and moving parts.
You can also add this generic concept of risks (including from unknown health issues up to a random object hitting the ship, I understand) to the aforementioned list of problems during the trip. In the surface of mars/moon, these risks will again grow geometrically; we are talking about poisonous + unknown vs. habitable + known. You cannot start thinking about what to do next before accounting for the basic premises properly.
At this stage, the only option which should be considered (= the only approach which we have ever tried before) is a simplistic indoor solution, together with a regular supply of basic resources (like air, water, food, etc.). The problem is that you cannot even think about such a setup in a place so far away like mars and this is where the terraforming fantasies have to kick in. That is: firstly, you imagine a cool enough destination; then you extrapolate everything by relying on as generic, improvable and simplistic assumptions as possible (practicality and reality are your enemies here); finally, you find unsolvable problems and decide to further-fantasise about a possible solution. Unfortunately, something like terraforming anything is still very far away from being feasible (if possible at all). One thing is coming up with nice theories and/or movies, but a completely different story is actually applying these ideas.
your speed and direction while consuming almost no fuel. It can easily take years or decades to get where you're going
As said, the fuel isn't the whole problem in transportation and certainly not in space travelling. Most of people should agree on this point, not sure why you insist in misinterpreting my words (+ the actually involved problems to come up with clearly impossible expectations). But there is another issue in this comment which I want to highlight: "take years or decades" denotes the kind of behaviour which I am observing in the dreamy people seriously thinking that what is completely impossible might happen. This is actually the reason why I included the aforementioned animation: some visual help for some people to get a better grasp of reality. In space, years or decades are nothing. One single light year (a pretty standardised unit distance) means travelling during hundreds of years. This is what you don't seem to get. Reaching the moon is extremely difficult, going further is at this point virtually impossible.
Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
I'll take 'em!
The big difference is that, on Earth, you need to be operating continuously over the entire distance, thanks to friction, traffic, weather, and other environmental hazards.
In space, you just set your trajectory and then go to sleep until you get to your destination. We do it all the time when sending probes around the system. There's basically nothing to hit - even when sending probes through the asteroid belt beyond Mars, the densest debris field in the solar system outside of Saturn's rings, and almost entirely unmapped, we just don't worry about it - there's so little material scattered across such a large space that the odds of an unintentional collision are vanishingly close to zero. Even radiation is roughly constant, aside from solar flares. For non-living goods either it can pretty much handle it, or it can't.
The result being that it doesn't actually make much difference whether you're sending a vessel across the solar system or just leaving it in high orbit - the non-fuel costs and risks are roughly the same. And we've gotten good about building hardware that doesn't mind being left "asleep" for years while it coasts through space.
Yes, obviously, if you have people on board you need to keep life support, etc, running, and are dealing with cumulative radiation and risk exposure - but that doesn't actually change all that much once you reach your destination - be it in open space, the Moon, or Mars, you're completely dependent on life support, and are beyond Earth's magnetosphere - reaching your destination only cuts your radiation exposure by about half as the planet's mass shields one hemisphere (well, somewhat better than that on Mars thanks to the thin atmosphere and greater distance from the sun).
Basically, as long as you're living in a tin can outside Low Earth Orbit, it doesn't make a dramatic difference where you are in terms of risk or resource consumption, except for the cumulative biological damage due to microgravity. And while there's some reason to be hopeful, we don't actually know to what degree low gravity will negate those problems, though it seems likely that the higher gravity on Mars will reduce them further than on the Moon.
Yes, since you're being exposed to those risks regardless, it would be nice to not waste time just sitting around waiting to reach your destination, but if you're planning a multi-decade mission, a few months one way or the other isn't likely to make a huge amount of difference. Though, assuming you have inflatable or other "fast deployment" habitats that will offer substantially better radiation shielding than the ship, there's certainly a good argument to be made that you should get into them as soon as possible.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
In regard to Slashdot news related to the trip to Mars... First post I read: Elon Musk Proposes Spaceship That Can Send 100 People To Mars In 80 Days! I read that post hearing the sound of the Beethoven's 9th symphony in my head. Then I read the second post: Elon Musk: First Humans Who Journey To Mars Must 'Be Prepared To Die' Something tells me they a tad bit of work on their marketing. ;-)
You don't seem to be getting my point. Forget about fuel and about the whole propulsion. Just think about doing something during 1 day vs. during 100 days. Whatever you will be doing is likely to be around 100 times more expensive/risky and, in this specific scenario, way above 100 times.
What I am trying to explain is that distances in space are certainly a very big deal. You want to think that there are not by focusing your analysis on the beneficial aspects (e.g., zero gravity or probes getting beyond mars), but you have to see the whole picture and to understand the tremendous difficulties associated with sending people to space. They would be travelling for months through areas where no man has gone before, the associated risk/cost is so huge (+ no direct benefits!!) that it is very unlikely to be assumed by anyone (not even allowed; no government will ever permit a so big and media-covered adventure to be even started in case of having a high likelihood of deaths). Just going to the space station (or to the moon or even just leaving earth's gravity) is extremely risky and prone-to-problems, imagine being in the open space months away from earth!
I am really sorry to see people like Elon Musk saying these things. Somehow risky and even a bit crazy attitudes from the private sector are certainly required on these fronts; most of big advancements in almost any area have been started by these people. But one thing is being risky/wanting to go beyond and a different story is trying to sell what isn't possible. I am not sure about his motivations, but it seems like a really bad move for his own interests.
Hopefully, this episode will help some people remember the huge differences between reality (we are nothing at the space level and have to try really hard to make even the slightest improvement on this front) and movies/theories/dreams/simulations (anything is possible). Choosing any of these alternatives is fine; not understanding the differences between both of them and having disproportionate expectations isn't.
Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
Meh, we'll solve cancer before we get to Mars.
And you're not getting the point that, for cargo at least, you're *not* doing anything for 100 days. You're accelerating for a day, and decelerating for a day (probably far less). The rest of the time you're just coasting along. No activity. No wear and tear. Just floating dead in the empty void of space waiting to arrive. Whether that's one day or 99 makes very little difference.
With people, yes, you also have to keep life support running, but that's not going to change at the destination, so it doesn't really matter how long the trip is. As for the trip - we understand space pretty well - it's empty, there's nothing there but radiation, and there's essentially no difference between traveling to Mars, and just circling the Earth in high orbit for an equivalent amount of time. There is zero additional risk - either way you're just killing time floating through empty space without any shielding except the hull. All the elevated danger is at the endpoints - launch and landing. And that's not going to change much regardless of whether you're going to Mars or the Moon.
The ONLY additional risk of traveling to Mars versus the Moon is the prolonged radiation exposure during transit, but even when you land you're only going to modestly reduce your radiation exposure, especially for early colonists without robust, heavily shielded shelters waiting for them (it would take burying the shelters under about 22ft of sand to achieve radiation shielding comparable to the Earth's atmosphere), they're going to be facing heavy radiation exposure at their destination as well during the trip - a few months in transit may inflict a dosage equivalent to a few years at their destination, which sucks, but it was pretty much going to suck regardless. Cancer is likely to be a major problem among early colonists who avoid dying some other way. Life expectancy among colonists is liable to be far shorter than for people who stay on Earth - that can't be helped, frontiers are always dangerous, and this will be by far the most dangerous frontier we've braved. If you're not willing to accept the risks, then I recommend not signing up.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
The ONLY additional risk of traveling to Mars versus the Moon
I wasn't trying to enumerate the disadvantages associated with the mars option (lots of them), just proving that the big distance is a very relevant issue.
If you're not willing to accept the risks, then I recommend not signing up
Signing up? Sorry to blow your bubble but there will be nothing to sign up for. Perhaps they might set some kind of pre-booking system, then delays and more delays (years will go by and you will gradually stop caring about all this). There might be some advertising campaigns, mostly meant to get some social support (presumably to ease the funding efforts, which will never be used to build what you want). They might even build the ship (forget about the numbers in this crazy proposal; you should be very happy in case of getting just one). NASA and SpaceX will certainly be labelling some of their work as required for an eventual trip to mars (today, I saw a video about a robot which might be used in future visits to mars).
I am completely sure that there will be no ship full of people heading to mars; certainly never on the lines of the Elon's fantastic stories, but neither any other version. On the other hand, if you are so interested in signing up for something, you might want to do an internet research (there is at least one company looking for volunteers to mars).
It is clear that our positions are very far away and that there is nothing to discuss here. So better stop doing it. Don't you think?
Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
>just proving that the big distance is a very relevant issue.
And yet you have yet to offer any evidence that the distance is an issue. As I have explained, repeatedly, the only thing the distance really changes is the cumulative radiation dose of the travelers. Everything else is pretty much the same regardless of whether the travelers are in transit, or have made it to their destination.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.
Nobody to get bribes from? Nobody to bullshit? Nobody to push around?
Besides, almost every one of them would stand no chance at passing the physical. It's not going to be like riding a bus.
I figure if you're going to mars, it's a one way trip. There is no way to send you back for the foreseeable future. Even if there is, I expect you'll be dead in no more than 5 years. I have a feeling you won't even make a year due to the sun's radiation. Maybe not even 5 minutes if the sun decides to blow some particles out that way. It's very hostile over there.
I just want to register someplace how mystified I am that not one single living soul seems to have the foggiest idea what the word "existential" even means; yet I seem to see and hear it everywhere I go. This Musk person seems to be no exception. It seems to be a generational thing too, because while Boomers (for example) or GenXers don't know either - at least they don't use the word every time they are expressing themselves and attempting to appear intelligent.
Good summary, other AC.
I didn't see the point in continuing with this discussion and that's why didn't reply to the last Immerman's post. I am writing this clarification just in case someone thinks that this AC is me.
I am not against ACs (mainly because of having been an AC my whole life; Alvaro Carballo to be more specific), but never used Slashdot's anonymous option (always logged as CustomSolvers2).
Custom Solvers 2.0 = Alvaro Carballo Garcia = varocarbas.
And my main point is, the destination is unlikely to be dramatically safer than the voyage, so, so what?
As I've pointed out, the risk of significant physical collisions with the ship is zero to several significant digits - the ISS is constantly traveling through *far* more chaotic and "dirty" space, so I assume you mean interpersonal "collisions"? At least for the first few trips, reaching their destination probably won't help much. They just go from being trapped together in a tin can in space, to in cramped habitats on the surface. Ditto perishables - it's liable to be years before locally-grown crops make up more than a small fraction of their diet, a few more months living on rations from Earth isn't going to make a huge logistical difference.
Also, radiation is actually an omnidirectional problem in space - the sun only produces, as I recall, about half of the radiation present, cosmic rays and the like make up the balance, and tend to be far more difficult to protect against as their extreme high energy creates cascade reactions in inadequate shielding, bombarding those so "protected" with far more radiation than if they had been completely unprotected. Hence the lack of significant radiation shielding on the ISS - any amount we could afford to get up there would only make the problem worse.
And obviously the balance changes as you move further from the sun - Mars gets what, 44% of the insolation as Earth? Solar radiation will be similarly reduced, so if solar/cosmic radiation is a 50/50 mix near Earth, it'll be closer to 30/70 near Mars.
--- Most topics have many sides worth arguing, allow me to take one opposite you.