Elon's Mars goal a mistake?

[Grendal]

As far as I am concerned we, as a species, need to get off the planet. Where we create habitats is up for discussion. At this point there are lots of possibilities including Mars but there are still other possibilities: O'Neil colonies, Venus, the Moon, Ceres, other asteroids, the moons of Mars. Those are just close options. Making it cheap to get off the planet has always been the first and most critical step. There are plenty of scientists that have done the work on creating a self sustaining biosphere. Getting close to self sustaining is also an option in the near future. Getting stuff out into space is still the trickiest part of the equation.

 

[Krugerrand]

SpaceX is working hard on the transportation issue but I haven't heard Elon talk about the rest.

I've heard him talk about the rest in bits and pieces.

Ye of little faith. Pfft!

 

[Larry Chanin]

Of course they have to live underground. This is not a problem.

Martian life must be studied before first humans land there. Perhaps there is no life yet.

We need:

1: Cheaper access to orbit: Spacex is trying.

2: Manned moon-base:
Tech must be tested on the Moon before going elsewhere for two reasons:
- In worst case time to escape to Earth or get spare parts is almost 3 years for Mars base, less that 3 days for Moon-base.
- Some work on moon-base can be done by remote control from Earth. 3 s time delay makes that very slow, but cost of working hour of first moon-base workers will be very high. Biosphere 2 inhabitants had too much work to maintain their biosphere and they didn't try to expand it. So online help from Earth might be necessary.

3: Moon-base must produce some metals and rocket fuel.

4: Build large radiation protected space station from construction materials from Moon. Of course some hi-tech parts need to come from Earth. Move this station to orbit of Mars.

5: This space station builds space station to moon of Mars. Supplies come from Earth and Moon.

6: Martian moon-base will use remote controlled equipment to study Mars.

7: Then to asteroids or to surface of Mars. Mercury would have plenty of solar energy. Perhaps also water and lot of heavier elements.

Yes, if we seriously care about the health of those traveling to Mars this approach is required. Unfortunately, it may not fit into Elon's time table, but I believe it is the prudent way to proceed with this important mission.

I can envision using large 3D printers extruding space craft components into a lunar orbit and boosting the raw materials for the printers from the moon using rail guns. It would be more economical than trying to boost a space craft from Earth and then to Mars and it could provide the all important radiation shielding needed to safely protect the inhabitants traveling to Mars.

Larry

 

[ecarfan]

I do not believe that establishing a moon base is a needed or necessary first step to getting to Mars. I think Elon has it right: Mars direct! (With apologies to Robert Zubrin, whose book of course Elon has read).
I think that the recent ESA decision to work towards a manned moon base by 2030 is a waste of resources. See "A village on the Moon by 2030" ESA Moon Village 2030
Certainly figuring out how to create a long term human colony on Mars is incredibly hard, in some ways harder than doing the same thing on the moon. But Mars has many resources that the moon lacks, and overall is a much better place for long term human habitation. The most important difference is that, thinking on a time scale of centuries, Mars can conceivably be terraformed but the moon cannot as its too small to ever hold an atmosphere.

 

[Skotty]

I don't think Elon's Mars goal is a mistake, but it may be further in the future than he would like. From a high enough perspective, it's the right move to better ensure human survival through the eons. The main goal of any sane species should be to protect it's own existence both in the now and in the future. And as a side note, any worthy species would attempt to do so without negatively impacting other intelligent species and minimizing impact on unintelligent species (something I believe we can do; where we draw the "intelligent" line is up for debate).

There will be a battle between those that want to study and not pollute Mars with Earth life, and those that want to spread Earth life out into space. Not sure how that fight will end, but I expect it will occur. I would side with colonizing Mars, as to me, it seems dead enough that any negative impact will be negligible or nonexistent.

I believe in the potential of mankind to be a positive force in the universe and that it is righteous for us to spread life to other areas that otherwise appear dead. As far as I can tell, intelligent life is the only thing in the universe that can give the universe any meaning -- a way for the universe to know itself, and work towards being content and even happy with it's own existence.

The universe may be somewhat self correcting in this regard. Only benevolent intelligent species willing to plan ahead for generations will thrive and grow in the universe, while others will be stuck in place and/or self destruct. I believe mankind is part of the former and refuse to believe we will fall to any self fulfilling prophecy of doom. We are young and troubled, but we will grow up in time. Mars is likely the first step we will take out of our Earthly crib.

 

[AudubonB]

I agree with ecarfan, and amongst my rather limited (5) Martian books, I would suggest using Zubrin's The Case for Mars as the best first step for grasping the concept of inhabiting Mars. There are most certainly manifold challenges; I believe, however, the two Johan brings up in the initial post are not significant ones.

 

[Chet]

As far as I am concerned we, as a species, need to get off the planet. Where we create habitats is up for discussion. At this point there are lots of possibilities including Mars but there are still other possibilities: O'Neil colonies, Venus, the Moon, Ceres, other asteroids, the moons of Mars. Those are just close options. Making it cheap to get off the planet has always been the first and most critical step. There are plenty of scientists that have done the work on creating a self sustaining biosphere. Getting close to self sustaining is also an option in the near future. Getting stuff out into space is still the trickiest part of the equation.

iMHO, we need to address first the problems on our own planet to ensure that it remains habital. Waisting resources on going to other planets is unfortunate. I do not buy the argument about spillover of the science involved is a justifiable by-product. In a word, it is just hubris.

 

[Skotty]

iMHO, we need to address first the problems on our own planet to ensure that it remains habital. Waisting resources on going to other planets is unfortunate. I do not buy the argument about spillover of the science involved is a justifiable by-product. In a word, it is just hubris.

It is only hubris if it will lead to ruin, whereas these interplanetary transport efforts may eventually lead to salvation.

 

[Grendal]

iMHO, we need to address first the problems on our own planet to ensure that it remains habital. Waisting resources on going to other planets is unfortunate. I do not buy the argument about spillover of the science involved is a justifiable by-product. In a word, it is just hubris.

I apologize ahead of time, but in my opinion I find this attitude dangerous and naïve. It is dangerous because it does not look at the big picture in a long term way. It is naïve in that the person having it has usually got a fantasy of everyone getting along, working together, and doing things right will become obvious to everyone.

Now that I've been rude - sorry - let me try to explain myself.

Should the Earth be preserved and all of us should solve all the problems here? Of course.
Will we? We sure haven't managed to do it so far.
Have we solved some problems? Sure. But not very many and we are creating more than we are solving. The human race can't agree on hardly anything.
Will the human race come together under threat? Maybe. We're under threat from global warming and there are plenty of people that could care less and there are plenty that say there isn't a problem at all. You can't control stupid people doing stupid things.
To get people to work together you would have to force it to happen. That would take away their rights and their freedoms.
Where are a lot of the problems with the environment and resources coming from? 7 billion people on one tiny (and getting tinier) little planet with limited resources.
Limited space and limited resources means that something, someone, or even a natural disaster could devastate the limited space.

Out there? An infinite amount of space. An infinite amount of resources.

We have to get out there, and as soon as possible. Anything less can mean disaster.

I kind of like us human beings. We are the one and only sentient being we are aware of. It's a big Universe out there. It's time to grow up and get moving.

 

[Johan]

I agree with ecarfan, and amongst my rather limited (5) Martian books, I would suggest using Zubrin's The Case for Mars as the best first step for grasping the concept of inhabiting Mars. There are most certainly manifold challenges; I believe, however, the two Johan brings up in the initial post are not significant ones.

But aren't they both (radiation + contamination) both significant problems in the short term time perspective (~1 generation) I which Elon wants to push for colonization?

I agree that in the longer term these issues can likely be pretty easily mitigated. But in the short term the radiation issue is a huge one which, IMHO, Elon is avoiding talking about (but I hope he's not avoiding thinking about it - he seems less prone to falling victim to that type of behavior as a result of painful cognitive dissonance).

The other problem is more of a subjective choice: should we spend one or a few decades studying Mars thoroughly through remote controlled rovers, drones and diggers (from an orbiting space station that could be many many times bigger than the ISS and a challenging and exciting project in itself)? Or should we try to land humans and live on (under?) the surface ASAP? Throughout human history there have been many instances where, in the pale light of afterthought, we can all agree we should have proceeded just a tad more carefully, curbing our enthusiasm so as not to ruin important historical/archeological etc. evidence. This could be one of these instances. Just think about how immensely important it is to be able to draw a well founded conclusion to the question of whether there exists any form of life, or has ever existed, on Mars (prior to us contaminating it!). A yes answer is very important: we now know life can either evolve quite easily in the universe or that life in our solar system came here from somewhere else (i.e. didn't evolve on earth). A no answer is also important because it would reinforce the idea that the evolution of life is indeed a highly unlikely occurrence, even if the temperature was in the right interval for hundreds of millions of years, sunlight, flowing water etc. In this case we should put more credence in the idea that we may be the only life form in our Hubble volume, which again has important long term implications, scientific, philosophical and ethical. My point is the answer has important implications regardless of if we can answer yes or no. If we contaminate Mars first we will ever only be able to answer with a resounding "maybe".

 

[WarpedOne]

.. but he must know that the idea of a self sustaining base on Mars in the next 30 years is highly unlikely to be possible.

Anytime we actually go there, first few decades will be hard, full of disasters and suffering.
Without actually going there and doing the work we *don't* know what exactly is need and sufficient.
We can only simulate that much, further development needs experimentation and practice. No child ever learned how to walk without a first step and first fall.

What is certain is that earth is doomed. Ever heard of that eggs in a single basket? We are those eggs in a single basket and in a freefall.
Sooner or later we will hit something. Yellowstone, giant meteorite, ...

 

[AudubonB]

On learning more about radiation as a hazard, here are two paths via the internet. First is "The Mars Papers", downloadable as a pdf. Relevant pages are 15-19: http://www.marspapers.org/papers/Zubrin_1991.pdf

Second is to google "zubrin radiation mars".

Note that Rob't Zubrin most definitely has an agenda - to promote his version of Martian exploration and inhabitation, and above all his method for interplanetary travel. Read his writings with those caveats firmly in hand.

 

[ecarfan]

Johan, I agree that radiation exposure on Mars and on the way there is a serious issue but I think a solvable one. It's a question of accurate monitoring of solar flares and proper shielding. On the spacecraft, shielding can be accomplished using the water the mission will need to carry with them (a non-trivial volume) and on Mars shielding can be created using the Martian regoltith.
The issue of Earth species (bacteria and viruses) contaminating Mars is a big one for some people, but not for me. Yes I certainly want to know if currently there is indigenous life on Mars. We have at least a decade to figure that out. But no matter what precautions we take, once humans get to Mars then Mars is "contaminated" and there is nothing we can do about it. In every human body there are approximately 10 trillion microbes (and only about 1 trillion human cells containing human DNA) representing hundreds of different bacterial and viral species, many of which are essential to human life. They go where we go. Some of them may be able to adapt to survive on Mars. We can't stop that.
Anyone who wants to keep Mars uncontaminated by terrestrial life forms is in effect saying that humans should never go there.

 

[ItsNotAboutTheMoney]

iMHO, we need to address first the problems on our own planet to ensure that it remains habital. Waisting resources on going to other planets is unfortunate. I do not buy the argument about spillover of the science involved is a justifiable by-product. In a word, it is just hubris.

You don't think that the ability reliably to lift large items into space at low cost would be useful at all in helping Earth?

 

[AudubonB]

About microbial contamination:

I think that unless you believe in the concept of Intelligent Design, you should rest easy. That the path for life forms have evolved on both Earth and Mars in such a fashion as both to have been created out of certain proteins, with RNA as a substrate and DNA as the C-G-A-T puzzle to be used to recreate the next generation of cells, AND that such life-creation, over the next umpteen trillion generations of evolution on their respective planets, could possibly cross-infect is so impossibly small that someone would far more likely hit the Powerball jackpot ten times in a row.

 

[Johan]

About microbial contamination:

I think that unless you believe in the concept of Intelligent Design, you should rest easy. That the path for life forms have evolved on both Earth and Mars in such a fashion as both to have been created out of certain proteins, with RNA as a substrate and DNA as the C-G-A-T puzzle to be used to recreate the next generation of cells, AND that such life-creation, over the next umpteen trillion generations of evolution on their respective planets, could possibly cross-infect is so impossibly small that someone would far more likely hit the Powerball jackpot ten times in a row.

Distinctly different life forms would of course be easy to distinguish from contamination.

My point is lets just delay settling on the surface fir a decade or two and try to make sure if Mars is, and has been, sterile or not. Knowing that would allow us to adjust our prior probabilities when thinking about the important question of whether life arose on planet Earth or came to Earth from somewhere else in the universe. But I guess that kind of patience comes in conflict with Musk being an impatient middle aged man dreaming about spending the last part of his life on Mars...

 

[Peter Egan]

I reckon in 500 years we will still only have Antarctica style research facilities on Mars. Robots are much better suited to exploration in hostile environments. NASA has done a lot of good work in developing spaceflight technology, but it is too expensive and too slow. It really should contract out more work to the private sector (SpaceX, etc) while still co-ordinating relationships with the universities and government laboratories.

 

[AudubonB]

More data always is better in this situation, Johan. I may try to contact an areologist I know to learn her opinion of how much focus on biologic activity the landed probes have had. I would expect them to have looked at O16/18, C12/14, and possibly S32/34 stable isotopic signatures. Fascinating stuff.

 

[GoTslaGo]

I am total agreement with Musk about the need to colonize Mars.

There is only so much resource any environment can provide a dominant species. We can see this pattern throughout Earth's history with different dominant species throughout its epochs. Ultimately all dominant species succumb to environmental and/or evolutionary pressures. The world changes, the old dies, and new species take over. We are the first species on Earth with the capability to escape this trap. Mars has the most similar environment that we can use, and we should.

Yes, there may be life there already, but it is likely microbial and or sparse. Furthermore the best way to identify and search for life on Mars is to have a colony on Mars to do sampling and analysis. A few robots rumbling around, sending images back over minutes to hours just is not going to cut it. Even with gas analysis (methane on mars?), unless we can have consistent repeat sampling with reproducible results and direct observation, it will always be only conjecture.

Johan's request for 1-2 decades prior to colonization will likely be born out anyway due to the sheer difficulty in long distant human space travel. Don't forget potential damage to the people traveling to Mars that will occur (couldn't help but to notice that many former astronauts have died in their 60s from leukemia, lymphoma, etc...; e.g.--Sally Ride. Remember these were REALLY fit and healthy people when they were young with presumably good health habits). There will be much to overcome before we can escape earth and perpetuate humanity.

I think it is hubris that we think we can preserve the Earth in a state we can live in forever. Yes we should work to that goal (one reason I own a Tesla), but we must acknowledge that there are many random things in life that we cannot control or foresee. Elon's goal to go to Mars is correct. It gives us another chance...

Unless the Sun blows up, then it really doesn't matter.

Suddenly I think I understand why Tesla/presumably Elon included the Easter Egg, 42. Weird, but it kinda makes sense in this thread.

Oh, let me add, this is why I think Tesla needs to start thinking about a real off-road capable vehicle. It would be ideal for driving on Mars. Can't burn gas, use H2, or whatever. Just charge the battery and go.

 

[snort]

Aside from not seeing any possible way for this to be self sustaining, either physically or economically, I'd say that the lower gravity on Mars may well be the killer issue, both figuratively and quite possibly, literally.

We have zero data about long term (>5 year) exposure to non-Earth gravity for any animal, much less humans, but the data we do have for short term exposure (18 months or less) isn't very promising. It may well be that Mars gravity, as opposed to zero G, will help a lot, but we have no data. Our entire evolutionary history has been under 1 G conditions so I see no reason to believe that we could successfully reproduce or even remain alive in a 1/3 G environment for many years.

Not true! We have fish and aquatic mammals, both of which live in zero G. Not completely: mammals use the surface, which is a consequence of gravity, for breathing. But they could breath just as well in a bubble that was big enough and had high enough pressure. Some fish are sensitive to gravity and live at a particular level, but many are not. You can make many of them swim at funny angles by shining a light through the side or bottom of their tank.

ISS and other missions have done lots of long term experiments on animals. more is necessary for sure, but a lot more than zero has been done.

I suppose we could build kilometer size rotating cities to induce artificial gravity, but while that would be a great engineering challenge, it sounds pretty expensive.

I think this is a great idea. it may be pretty expensive in near earth orbits such as the Lagrange points (the moon has cleared most of the orbital stuff out a disk about a million KM in diameter), but it may well be the best way to live in the asteroid belt. All the materials we need to construct it, including a wide variety of metals, and water and oxygen, are fairly conveniently available there. By convenient, I mean in an orbit with low energy difference from where we want to put it. Once we have a colony going out there, we don't need to ship supplies at all, only the colonists themselves. and it may be easier to bring a bunch of that stuff closer to earth to help be a stepping stone.

--Snortybartfast