Spot On --> It’s ridiculous to think that humans could live on Mars

_Tombstone_

http://qz.com/536483/why-its-compeltely-ridiculous-to-think-that-humans-could-live-on-mars/

It's about how we are in alot of ways turning Earth into Mars....ah just read it and see what ye think. I like the part about the Scientists down in Antartica.


What are we trying to go to Mars for? Until we figure out Teraforming/Magnetic Fields, it's totally pointless.

nokia69

living on Mars is easy, there is no problem that can't be solved if you have a big enough rocket, this rocket is now being worked on

the best part is once you have a rocket that big it also opens up the rest of the solar system

Until we figure out Teraforming/Magnetic Fields, it's totally pointless.

its not pointless

in the past Mars was a very different planet, and it may well have had life maybe even complex life, so small scale pure science missions are most definitely not pointless

Maximus Alexander

Her main point seems to be that if we can't live in a resource neutral way on Earth, then why do we think we can do it on Mars? Or, why do we want to do it on Mars, rather than here?

I would counter that by saying that if we go to Mars the colonists will have no choice but to live in a resource neutral way, and in so doing, they might teach us something about how we can do it better here on Earth. As long as there are billions of people on Earth, with the option to be wasteful, we will continue to be wasteful. Perhaps unless we are shown that there is a better way.

Manach

Looking at the history of exploration, while the search for extra resources were a driving force other factors such as the lure of new frontiers, a wish to leave the political polity or a simple wish to improve ones lot were the main drivers. The cost to get to Mars would be very expensive using current tech models but should it drop then this might prove a destination.

tricky D

nokia69 wrote: »

living on Mars is easy, there is no problem that can't be solved if you have a big enough rocket, this rocket is now being worked on

Mars has 40% of Earth's gravity which doesn't bode well for long term habitation and no rocket will solve that.

ps200306

I've never seen the point of sending people to Mars. We've done great science with the robots we've sent, and this can only get better. Mars is much more suited to machines that don't complain about the lack of heat, air, or human company.

nokia69

tricky D wrote: »

Mars has 40% of Earth's gravity which doesn't bode well for long term habitation and no rocket will solve that.

thats an unknown, living on the ISS for long periods has a serious effect on the body, living with 40% gravity maybe OK long term

if it is a problem I can think of ways to solve it

Captain Chaos

It's the lack of a magnetic field that's the big one. Any hits from solar flares will fry everyone, I don't know how the rovers are still working.

People will have to live underground to stay on Mars for any length of time.

Anyone want to nuke it's core and get it kick started again.:D

tricky D

nokia69 wrote: »

thats an unknown, living on the ISS for long periods has a serious effect on the body, living with 40% gravity maybe OK long term

if it is a problem I can think of ways to solve it

That's very, very wishful thinking. The physiological effects of loss of balance, loss of bone density, muscle mass and eyesight issues are well known in space medicine, whether at micro or low gravity. A 60% reduction in gravity can not be dismissed as any where near OK. No technology or medical intervention can solve those factors any where near adequately.

nokia69

tricky D wrote: »

That's very, very wishful thinking. The physiological effects of loss of balance, loss of bone density, muscle mass and eyesight issues are well known in space medicine, whether at micro or low gravity. A 60% reduction in gravity can not be dismissed as any where near OK. No technology or medical intervention can solve those factors any where near adequately.

micro gravity and a 60% reduction are two very different things IMO, we just can't know if 40% gravity on Mars is a problem, my bet is that it should be OK

there were plans to have Centrifuge module on the ISS to test various gravity % on small animals, that would have gone a long way to giving an answer, pity it got canceled

Capt'n Midnight

nokia69 wrote: »

there were plans to have Centrifuge module on the ISS to test various gravity % on small animals, that would have gone a long way to giving an answer, pity it got canceled

Skylab was big enough that they could run around on the circumference. So a low rpm centrifuge would be easy. Another reason to despise the money pit that was the Shuttle.


Mars has no trees. Trees are handy because you can harvest the materials and energy that's already accumulated in them very easily. Water here on earth has concentrated minerals and eroded the landscape to make them accessible.

If you need power on Mars you have to bring your own. Yes there is wind but the air too thin. Solar sounds good but when planet wide sandstorms can go on for months you might need some backup. Yes there are fewer clouds but you are further from the sun so you need a lot of panels.

Much of the recoverable Iron here is a result of biology in the sea. The Banded Iron Formations were precipitated out from brown oceans. Mars has nothing similar AFAIK.

Platinum group metals might be easier to find though since meter craters are easier to identify.

_Tombstone_

Mystery Of Mars' Lost Atmosphere Solved At Last, Thanks To NASA's MAVEN Mission

http://www.forbes.com/sites/startswithabang/2015/11/05/mystery-of-mars-lost-atmosphere-solved-at-last-thanks-to-nasas-maven-mission/

_Tombstone_

Oh the Places We Won't Go: Humans Will Settle Mars, and Nowhere Else [Excerpt]

Planetary Society co-founder Louis Friedman argues the Red Planet will be humanity’s final destination, but our robots could reach the stars

We'll build the Enterprise at some stage Louie.

_Tombstone_

_Tombstone_ wrote: »

robots will reach the stars

The Doomsday Invention

Will artificial intelligence bring us utopia or destruction?

http://www.newyorker.com/magazine/2015/11/23/doomsday-invention-artificial-intelligence-nick-bostrom

_Tombstone_

Space Radiation is Quietly Stopping Us From Sending Humans To Mars

Innumberable dangers threaten human astronauts traveling into deep space. Some of these, like asteroids, are obvious and avoidable with some decent LIDAR. Others aren’t. At the top of the not-so-much list is space radiation, something NASA is in now way prepared to protect explorers from while ferrying them to Mars. The radiation environment beyond the magnetosphere is not conducive to life, meaning sending astronauts out there without protection is equivalent to sending them to their doom.

RJohnG

Mars is about the only viable option should we try to set up permanent bases. A long way off though.

filbert the fox

tricky D wrote: »

That's very, very wishful thinking. The physiological effects of loss of balance, loss of bone density, muscle mass and eyesight issues are well known in space medicine, whether at micro or low gravity. A 60% reduction in gravity can not be dismissed as any where near OK. No technology or medical intervention can solve those factors any where near adequately.

Enough of the science/physiology/gravity/ mullarkey.

What would give mankind inspiration, raison d'etre, stimulation, appreciation of beauty, joy of simplicity like the changing seasons, serendipity, philosophy musings, etc on a dead planet?

nokia69

RJohnG wrote: »

Mars is about the only viable option should we try to set up permanent bases. A long way off though.

About 10 years

nokia69

filbert the fox wrote: »

Enough of the science/physiology/gravity/ mullarkey.

What would give mankind inspiration, raison d'etre, stimulation, appreciation of beauty, joy of simplicity like the changing seasons, serendipity, philosophy musings, etc on a dead planet?

I doubt its a dead planet, and once people are living there it will have life

Mars has a beauty of its own

filbert the fox

nokia69 wrote: »

I doubt its a dead planet, and once people are living there it will have life

Mars has a beauty of its own

:eek:

_Tombstone_

filbert the fox wrote: »

Enough of the science/physiology/gravity/ mullarkey.

What would give mankind inspiration, raison d'etre, stimulation, appreciation of beauty, joy of simplicity like the changing seasons, serendipity, philosophy musings, etc on a dead planet?

Because barring some miracle we are gonna ruin Earth - will be the biggest driver. 20 Million I think was a prediction during the week for the amount of people in Africa thats gonna be displaced in just the next 15 years (?) due to drought.

Miami and New Orleans are some say, already gone/ to late to save from sea level rise....Bye Bye Miami - that's another 20 Million.

Same story in Auckland New Zealand.

Global temperatures skyrocketed in October




New breakthrough from Belfast might help

The Italians have a colorful expression – to make a hole in water – to describe an effort with no hope of succeeding. Researchers at Queen's University Belfast (QUB), however, have seemingly managed the impossible, creating a class of liquids that feature permanent holes at the molecular level. The properties of the new materials are still largely unknown, but what has been gleaned so far suggests they could be used for more convenient carbon capturing or as a molecular sieve to quickly separate different gases.

And that's before you add a few billion more people to the Planet. 7.3 Billion now, 11 Billion predicted by 2100, thats not that far away now. It's finally getting to the stage where the rich/powerful will be around to see it and we might get some solutions...or it could turn into that ep of Star Trek TNG where they kill anyone that hits 65.:p 1.5Billion over 65 by 2050.

And all them people are gonna start fighting over dwindiling resource...water mostly Study: We're Using Our Groundwater Too Quickly

US has been happy keeping the war machine ticking over in the middle east for a good while, a good war will bring the numbers down...it wouldn't take much the way things have been set up at the minute.


Hell, all this is what SpaceX has said is what it will take to get some people to actually agree to go to Mars - 200 days just to get there.

nokia69 wrote: »

About 10 years

All your eggs in the SpaceX basket:D, the Rocket end of their plans are well along but the automated building of a Base, water, supplies, other stuff in 10 years...can't see it.

Best link I can find for their plans.



NASA has 25-25years

Eugene Norman

_Tombstone_ wrote: »

Because barring some miracle we are gonna ruin Earth - will be the biggest driver. 20 Million I think was a prediction during the week for the amount of people in Africa thats gonna be displaced in just the next 15 years (?) due to drought.

Miami and New Orleans are some say, already gone/ to late to save from sea level rise....Bye Bye Miami - that's another 20 Million.

Same story in Auckland New Zealand.

Global temperatures skyrocketed in October




New breakthrough from Belfast might help








And that's before you add a few billion more people to the Planet. 7.3 Billion now, 11 Billion predicted by 2100, thats not that far away now. It's finally getting to the stage where the rich/powerful will be around to see it and we might get some solutions...or it could turn into that ep of Star Trek TNG where they kill anyone that hits 65.:p 1.5Billion over 65 by 2050.

And all them people are gonna start fighting over dwindiling resource...water mostly Study: We're Using Our Groundwater Too Quickly

US has been happy keeping the war machine ticking over in the middle east for a good while, a good war will bring the numbers down...it wouldn't take much the way things have been set up at the minute.


Hell, all this is what SpaceX has said is what it will take to get some people to actually agree to go to Mars - 200 days just to get there.






All your eggs in the SpaceX basket:D, the Rocket end of their plans are well along but the automated building of a Base, water, supplies, other stuff in 10 years...can't see it.

Best link I can find for their plans.



NASA has 25-25years

You've taken some legitimate science and turned it into an eschatological cult

_Tombstone_

Eugene Norman wrote: »

You've taken some legitimate science and turned it into an eschatological cult

Their was abit of positivity with the carbon capturing.:o

I didn't even mention that a runny nose could kill ya before you see any of it cuz the Chinese were feeding antibiotics to their cows instead of grass!

nokia69

_Tombstone_ wrote: »

All your eggs in the SpaceX basket:D, the Rocket end of their plans are well along but the automated building of a Base, water, supplies, other stuff in 10 years...can't see it.

Best link I can find for their plans.

yeah it looks to me that Spacex will do it, unless Musk comes to a bad end, which is very possible, he is pissing off too many of the wrong people

they don't need an automated base, they just need to be able to land large payloads on the surface, for that they need a large but cheap rocket, work has started on the engine for this rocket, should be finished before 2020, then maybe 5 more years for the rest of the rocket and the spacecraft

_Tombstone_ wrote: »

NASA has 25-25years

NASA will drop those plans once they cancel the SLS, I can see them paying SpaceX to send their men to the Moon and Later Mars, they will get far more value for their money that way

RJohnG

nokia69 wrote: »

About 10 years

Hopefully in my lifetime but I'm not betting on it. If they find anything to mine they might get there sooner!

Dunno, but it's fascinating.

Capt'n Midnight

They could save a whole bundle on a Mars mission by using tele presence. Humans in orbit controlling machines on the ground. By 2030 we'll have much better virtual reality so it should be much easier than today where we already use it for surgery.

Means the lander doesn't need to be human rated , don't need an ascent stage. for humans. You could have a small sample return to orbit. You get most of the science with a huge saving on launch mass.

If you need shielding then land on one of the moons.


Oh and for most scenarios where we need to reboot the human race, it's much cheaper to hide down at the bottom of a mine. For anything else spreading out amongst the asteroids might be better. Or even the moon.

Mars is at the bottom of a gravity well. With no solar power 50% of the time and reduced solar during the storm months. You still need space suits, though not so much cooling in them.

nokia69

I have no doubt that robots or probes controlled from orbit will happen on Mars and other places, but Mars is the best place in the solar system for manned human bases

I don't think building a simple Mars or Moon lander is very hard or expensive, but what Space X are planning to do does look tricky, Musk has been saying he wants to land the whole space craft on the surface

Capt'n Midnight

_Tombstone_ wrote: »

Because barring some miracle we are gonna ruin Earth - will be the biggest driver. 20 Million I think was a prediction during the week for the amount of people in

https://xkcd.com/1389/

Mars isn't all that big. 144.8 million km² vs 165.2 million km² for the Pacific Ocean. We could get the same living space on boats.

Yes we are ruining Earth, but Mars is a cold airless desert. The Sahara is 9 million Km2 of easy living in comparison. All the Sahara really needs is water and here on earth that's just a question of energy and pipes and they are just a question of money.

Capt'n Midnight

nokia69 wrote: »

I don't think building a simple Mars or Moon lander is very hard or expensive, but what Space X are planning to do does look tricky, Musk has been saying he wants to land the whole space craft on the surface

It's very, very expensive. Because of the cost of getting each gramme to Mars. And because how much extra mass it takes to get down to the surface.

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Curiosity_%28rover%29

Curiosity comprised 23 percent of the mass of the 3,893 kg (8,583 lb) Mars Science Laboratory (MSL) spacecraft, which had the sole mission of delivering the rover safely across space from Earth to a soft landing on the surface of Mars. The remaining mass of the MSL craft was discarded in the process of carrying out this task.

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

The spacecraft flight system had a mass at launch of 3,893 kg (8,583 lb), consisting of an Earth-Mars fueled cruise stage (539 kg (1,188 lb)), the entry-descent-landing (EDL) system (2,401 kg (5,293 lb) including 390 kg (860 lb) of landing propellant), and a 899 kg (1,982 lb) mobile rover

To get that 899Kg to Mars needed over 300 tonnes of rocket at the launch pad.

Similar weight ratios on the link here
http://www.nasaspaceflight.com/2015/09/nasa-considers-sls-launch-sequence-mars-missions-2030s/

Now, getting back up off the surface is a different kettle of fish. The escape velocity , and hence speed to orbit, is a little under half that of earth. So look at any two stage rocket here and just use the second stage.

nokia69

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

It's very, very expensive. Because of the cost of getting each gramme to Mars. And because how much extra mass it takes to get down to the surface.

today its very expensive because it was launched on an Atlas V that cost close to 200million, a reusable launcher would bring this cost way down, most of the cost estimates for a Mars mission come from NASA and are always inflated IMO

Capt'n Midnight wrote: »

Now, getting back up off the surface is a different kettle of fish. The escape velocity , and hence speed to orbit, is a little under half that of earth. So look at any two stage rocket here and just use the second stage.

yeah getting into Mars/Moon orbit is easy enough, a simple rocket that just travels up and down from Mars orbit to the surface with men and supplies would not be difficult to build, and if it was powered by methane the fuel would be easy to produce on Mars

Capt'n Midnight

nokia69 wrote: »

today its very expensive because it was launched on an Atlas V that cost close to 200million, a reusable launcher would bring this cost way down, most of the cost estimates for a Mars mission come from NASA and are always inflated IMO

We've been waiting for cheaper rockets for ages now. Soyuz from the 1950's and Proton from the 1960's are still commercial launch systems.

yeah getting into Mars/Moon orbit is easy enough, a simple rocket that just travels up and down from Mars orbit to the surface with men and supplies would not be difficult to build, and if it was powered by methane the fuel would be easy to produce on Mars

All it takes is LOTS of energy. Both Nuclear and Solar would be very heavy and you'd have to wait ages to fill the tanks.


Compare them to this The Mars Project is a technical specification for a manned mission to Mars that von Braun wrote in 1948, with a provisional launch date of 1965