Mars and Off Planet Colonization - Pros and Cons Discussion

[Oil4AsphaultOnly]

So a knowledge of classic science fiction is critical to discussing the plausibility of colonizing space? Very telling. I guess you have to be into make-believe to think that people could actually make a life in a place with no atmosphere to speak of, only trace amounts of water, toxic regolith in place of soil, no magnetosphere, and no resources. Good to know.

And FWIW, I read some of Asimov when I was little, but I've never read Foundation. The premise (that human behavior in the aggregate could be predicted for millennia into the future with mathematics) is too extreme for me to be able to suspend disbelief. I prefer my science to be actual science, and my fantasy to make no claims of being science.

And this is the distraction I was referring to. Thank you for proving that you're not interested in an actual discussion and only here to spread your "knowledge".

You still didn't accept/refute my point that regardless of humanity's worth, the preservation of it calls for a backup (regardless of whether or not it's even possible).

This thread starts from the answer that a backup is indeed needed, and we're discussing the how/possibilities.

You are stuck on the first answer and don't seem to think humanity is worth saving. With that viewpoint, what is there for you to discuss on this thread?

 

[Oil4AsphaultOnly]

So a knowledge of classic science fiction is critical to discussing the plausibility of colonizing space? Very telling. I guess you have to be into make-believe to think that people could actually make a life in a place with no atmosphere to speak of, only trace amounts of water, toxic regolith in place of soil, no magnetosphere, and no resources. Good to know.

And FWIW, I read some of Asimov when I was little, but I've never read Foundation. The premise (that human behavior in the aggregate could be predicted for millennia into the future with mathematics) is too extreme for me to be able to suspend disbelief. I prefer my science to be actual science, and my fantasy to make no claims of being science.

Off-topic:

IF you "like" the I,Robot series, then you really should try to finish all of Asimov's Foundation series all the way to Forward The Foundation to get the "Ah!" moment.

 

[daniel]

And this is the distraction I was referring to. Thank you for proving that you're not interested in an actual discussion and only here to spread your "knowledge".

You still didn't accept/refute my point that regardless of humanity's worth, the preservation of it calls for a backup (regardless of whether or not it's even possible).

This thread starts from the answer that a backup is indeed needed, and we're discussing the how/possibilities.

You are stuck on the first answer and don't seem to think humanity is worth saving. With that viewpoint, what is there for you to discuss on this thread?

That other thread was apparently regarded by the mods as assuming a "backup" is needed and as a discussion of the possibilities. So my posts and the replies to me were moved here, to this thread specifically about the pros and cons of colonizing Mars. This discussion was regarded as being off-topic there. Here, it is the topic.

You assert that "regardless of humanity's worth" we need a "backup" to preserve it. I assert four separate things: That humanity is destructive of every environment we inhabit, so that even if we could colonize Mars, we would destroy it in short order; that no species lasts forever, so trying to preserve homo sapiens is a fool's errand; that Mars is such a hell that living there would be worse than not living at all; and that it is not feasible to create a self-sustaining colony on Mars, one that could survive the loss of support from Earth.

Off-topic:

IF you "like" the I,Robot series, then you really should try to finish all of Asimov's Foundation series all the way to Forward The Foundation to get the "Ah!" moment.

I enjoyed Asimov as a teenager. These days I prefer my fantasy to be full-on fantasy, my science to be actual science, and my fiction to not be fantasy.

 

[Oil4AsphaultOnly]

That other thread was apparently regarded by the mods as assuming a "backup" is needed and as a discussion of the possibilities. So my posts and the replies to me were moved here, to this thread specifically about the pros and cons of colonizing Mars. This discussion was regarded as being off-topic there. Here, it is the topic.

You assert that "regardless of humanity's worth" we need a "backup" to preserve it. I assert four separate things: That humanity is destructive of every environment we inhabit, so that even if we could colonize Mars, we would destroy it in short order; that no species lasts forever, so trying to preserve homo sapiens is a fool's errand; that Mars is such a hell that living there would be worse than not living at all; and that it is not feasible to create a self-sustaining colony on Mars, one that could survive the loss of support from Earth.



I enjoyed Asimov as a teenager. These days I prefer my fantasy to be full-on fantasy, my science to be actual science, and my fiction to not be fantasy.

You're right, this thread is appropriate for that. But you're wrong with everything else.

- we're not naturally destructive, we're simply successful consumers (to live and propagate). Consumption is destructive though. The fact that humans have thrived unchecked, is because we've developed past the abilities of our natural predators to keep us in check. Natural selection no longer works when we can control our environment (first at the micro level, and eventually planet-wide).
- Antarctica, underwater, and space were previously uninhabitable as well. Prior to various inventions, they were uninhabitable. They're just not self-sustaining ... yet.

Being better stewards of earth is merely a stepping stone to making life habitable outside of it, because matter is neither created nor destroyed. At the most fundamental level, all living things are merely consumers of solar energy. ALL biological and chemical processes are nothing more than the absorption, storage, and transfer of that energy. So being able to manage those processes in a way that doesn't poison our environment is exactly what's needed to make self-sustaining colonies functional.

Thus the reverse is also true, learning how to make space colonies self-sustaining would also help us manage our planet's resources (clean air and water) better. So stop focusing on the problems we've created for ourselves and start focusing on possible solutions.

 

[ecarfan]

Here’s some good news, in my opinion: Enough water to cover Mars ‘lies frozen beneath red planet’s equator’

Scientists have discovered what they believe to be a massive underground reservoir of ancient water ice buried beneath the equator of Mars. Layers of frozen water, some more than two miles thick, are thought to lie within the 3,100-mile long Medusae Fossae Formation (MFF) — one of Mars’s most geologically intriguing features. Studies of the area first hinted at the presence of mysterious underground deposits in 2007 but their composition was unclear. Now, more than 15 years later, data gathered by the European Space Agency’s (ESA) Mars Express orbiter appears to confirm that it is frozen water — the largest deposit yet found at the Martian equator.

Such water won’t be pure, it will certainly need some degree of processing and that might be quite difficult, but this is still a highly significant discovery.

“We’ve explored the MFF again using newer data from Mars Express’s Marsis [Mars Advanced Radar for Subsurface and Ionosphere Sounding] instrument and we found the deposits to be even thicker than we thought,” Thomas Watters, a senior scientist at the Smithsonian Institution’s Centre for Earth and Planetary Studies in Washington DC, said. “Excitingly, the radar signals match what we expect to see from layered ice and are similar to signals we see from Mars’s polar caps, which we know to be very ice-rich.” Were it liquid, the water would be enough to cover all of Mars in an ocean some 9ft deep — a volume equivalent to Earth’s Red Sea.

 

[ecarfan]

Eric Berger’s analysis of Elon’s latest SpaceX presentation which was focused on Mars colonization.

All of this is fairly familiar territory for spaceflight enthusiasts—and observers of Musk. But during the last eight years he has become an increasingly controversial and polarizing figure. Based on his behavior, many people will dismiss Musk's Mars comments as those of a megalomaniac. At least in regard to spaceflight, however, that would be wrong. Musk's multiplanetary ambitions today are more credible because SpaceX has taken steps toward doing what he said the company would do. SpaceX has real hardware today and has completed three test flights. A fourth is possible next month.

He then summarizes the main points of the presentation, as @JB47394 has already done in the Starship general development thread. He concludes with:

How much you buy into this vision will undoubtedly depend on your predilection toward Musk and your sense of the difficulty of forging habitable communities on an uninhabitable world like Mars. The engineering challenges are extraordinary. But people have been underestimating SpaceX for years. Generally, the company's talented employees have done what Musk has said they would do. Why stop now? Eight years ago, when Musk first outlined his Mars plans, I characterized them as "audacity, madness, and brilliance." I still believe all three adjectives apply.

SpaceX has made impressive progress over the past 5 years in moving towards realizing that goal. The next 5 years will likely be even harder. Yet I think anyone who has been paying attention would be wise to acknowledge that the goal could be achieved in this century. Maybe…

 

[Grendal]

Eric Berger’s analysis of Elon’s latest SpaceX presentation which was focused on Mars colonization.


He then summarizes the main points of the presentation, as @JB47394 has already done in the Starship general development thread. He concludes with:

SpaceX has made impressive progress over the past 5 years in moving towards realizing that goal. The next 5 years will likely be even harder. Yet I think anyone who has been paying attention would be wise to acknowledge that the goal could be achieved in this century. Maybe…

I'm pretty sure it will happen if Elon has any control over the situation. He already understands that he won't live long enough to see colonization happen but I'm sure he hopes to see his Starship factories pumping out one to two ships a week. I expect he will put someone in charge of SpaceX that will see his vision go into the future. He, and I hope I, will see the first people land on Mars and the first steps toward having a fueling factory set up there. Thereafter, it will be a decade (at least) to set up a migration to Mars with a hundred ships during every transfer period.

Prior to colonization, I expect Starships traveling everywhere in the solar system loaded with scientific experiments.

 

[Ben W]

I'm pretty sure it will happen if Elon has any control over the situation. He already understands that he won't live long enough to see colonization happen but I'm sure he hopes to see his Starship factories pumping out one to two ships a week. I expect he will put someone in charge of SpaceX that will see his vision go into the future. He, and I hope I, will see the first people land on Mars and the first steps toward having a fueling factory set up there. Thereafter, it will be a decade (at least) to set up a migration to Mars with a hundred ships during every transfer period.

Prior to colonization, I expect Starships traveling everywhere in the solar system loaded with scientific experiments.

I fully expect that we will have AGI robots capable of building out the infrastructure for Mars colonies and ISPP, and do it that way, long before we send large numbers of humans there. Far cheaper and simpler [no need for life support or human-rating] and less risky. I expect it to be another 15-20 years before the first humans set foot on Mars, but I wouldn't be surprised to see the first uncrewed Starship landing attempt on Mars by the 2028-2029 launch window. 2026 is pushing it, but not impossible!

 

[EVCollies]

I fully expect that we will have AGI robots capable of building out the infrastructure for Mars colonies and ISPP, and do it that way, long before we send large numbers of humans there. Far cheaper and simpler [no need for life support or human-rating] and less risky. I expect it to be another 15-20 years before the first humans set foot on Mars, but I wouldn't be surprised to see the first uncrewed Starship landing attempt on Mars by the 2028-2029 launch window. 2026 is pushing it, but not impossible!

An attempt in 2026 would be part of SpaceX's develop fast, likely fail, iterate for better chance in 2028.

 

[ecarfan]

I'm pretty sure it will happen if Elon has any control over the situation. He already understands that he won't live long enough to see colonization happen…

Elon is only 53 years old. Given the average American male lifespan is currently around 73 years, if SpaceX is able to begin Martian colonization in about a decade it appears that he will be around to see it.

If you mean will he be alive to see a million people on Mars — his stated goal — I would agree that he is unlikely to see that happen. But didn’t he say in his recent presentation that his target was to achieve that in 20 years from now? I think such a target is completely implausible, but he will probably still be alive and in charge of SpaceX at that time.

 

[Max Spaghetti]

Have there been any useful reasons put forward to have a colony on Mars other than proof of concept that it can be done, and to do it before anyone else does?

With Apollo, once the novelty wore off with the populace (which happened way faster than NASA was expecting), they couldn't think of any reason to keep sending missions up there, so they stopped. Is there a chance the same thing will happen with Artemis, and subsequently Mars?

 

[Oil4AsphaultOnly]

Have there been any useful reasons put forward to have a colony on Mars other than proof of concept that it can be done, and to do it before anyone else does?

With Apollo, once the novelty wore off with the populace (which happened way faster than NASA was expecting), they couldn't think of any reason to keep sending missions up there, so they stopped. Is there a chance the same thing will happen with Artemis, and subsequently Mars?

The only reason is to sustain the light of consciousness in case of some sort of a catastrophic disaster on earth. But much like with many things, there are other possible solutions that are more achievable (namely space colonies in the the lagrange points due to having access to more energy).

 

[ecarfan]

Have there been any useful reasons put forward to have a colony on Mars other than proof of concept that it can be done, and to do it before anyone else does?

As @Oil4AsphaultOnly stated, which is what Elon has stated repeatedly for about a decade. The basic idea is that there are existential threats to humanity if our species is confined to a single planet. These threats fall into two categories:

From humans: various types of environmental catastrophes, which could be from the way we are currently polluting our air, land, and water, potentially collapsing the biosphere and the food chain we depend on, or producing radical climate change in the near future (again from our own air pollution) thereby making civilization unsustainable, from our own weaponry, i.e. widespread chemical, biological, or nuclear warfare, from global viral pandemics that we are unable to defend ourselves against, etc.

From the universe in general; large asteroids that radically alter our environment making it uninhabitable (has happened multiple times in the history of the Earth) or the inevitable obliteration of Earth by the Sun as it expands and dies (over a billion years from now, so almost* last on my list of things to worry about).

All these threats are real and undeniable. The risks can be reduced — though not eliminated — by establishing a second human civilization off Earth. Yes it will be very expensive and incredibly difficult and the effort could fail. But it is certainly worth the attempt. As a percentage of global GDP the cost is affordable particularly when compared against the risk of human civilization being wiped out in the near future or distant future.

There is also the existential risk of AGI becoming extremely powerful and inadvertently malignant, which probably cannot be defended against.

* And then there is the chance of malignant super powered aliens invading Earth, but in my opinion any species sufficiently advanced to be capable of traversing interstellar distances is not going to be nasty, just curious and will simply observe us from a distance and then ignore us as being uninteresting.

 

[JB47394]

That having been said, I suspect there are always going to be times when you may need human intervention if the device just can't get the job done.

I'd need an example. It's getting more and more difficult to postulate something that a person can do better than a machine and a person combined. The one situation that comes to mind for me is communications problems - severing the link between person and machine. If control of a device is wireless, then you could get interference, preventing remote use. If control of a device is wired, then the wire could break. A person brings agency no matter where they go, but that agency is limited to whatever that one person can bring. That is, the person would presumably also be cut off from external communications in that same situation, and they'd be left to their own devices, so you'd really want reliable communications no matter what.

Does a "manned space flight pessimist", prefer humans never leave earth?

What does moving human bodies off the planet accomplish? If you're thinking of Elon's argument about multiplanetary species, it's a vacuous argument. Any colony off planet is 100 times more likely to be wiped out than our colony here on Earth. Controlling the space around us is worth pursuing so that any existential threats from passing rocks can be dealt with, but that's about it. And we don't need boots in space to do that.

Humanity's greatest existential threat is humanity itself, and we should be laboring to solve our physiological and psychological shortcomings far more aggressively than figuring out how to move bodies around in space.

 

[Ben W]

I'd need an example. It's getting more and more difficult to postulate something that a person can do better than a machine and a person combined. The one situation that comes to mind for me is communications problems - severing the link between person and machine. If control of a device is wireless, then you could get interference, preventing remote use. If control of a device is wired, then the wire could break. A person brings agency no matter where they go, but that agency is limited to whatever that one person can bring. That is, the person would presumably also be cut off from external communications in that same situation, and they'd be left to their own devices, so you'd really want reliable communications no matter what.


What does moving human bodies off the planet accomplish? If you're thinking of Elon's argument about multiplanetary species, it's a vacuous argument. Any colony off planet is 100 times more likely to be wiped out than our colony here on Earth. Controlling the space around us is worth pursuing so that any existential threats from passing rocks can be dealt with, but that's about it. And we don't need boots in space to do that.

Humanity's greatest existential threat is humanity itself, and we should be laboring to solve our physiological and psychological shortcomings far more aggressively than figuring out how to move bodies around in space.

As noted, telepresence reliability is the limiting factor. This implies that the human will need to be physically close to the robot they’re controlling, thus in space. Particularly true for the moon or Mars; time lag and bandwidth would both be showstopping for tele-controlling robots from Earth in real-time. So until Optimus gains true AGI (and vacuum-hardening), we’ll need humans in space for certain tasks; exploration, science, construction, and repair, even if only robots are doing the actual EVA part.

Once Optimus does gain true AGI though, it seems like a no-brainer that e.g. Moon and Mars bases should be constructed purely robotically before we send any significant number of humans there. (Undoubtedly we’ll send a small number sooner to prove that we can, because that’s human nature, and because some humans WANT to go and be the first, despite the difficulty and risk.)

 

[JB47394]

Once Optimus does gain true AGI though, it seems like a no-brainer

Obviously, there's a spectrum between pure teleoperation and pure autonomy. I guess the rovers on Mars are the best example of how things have already changed. Operators started with Spirit requiring a day of hard work by a team of engineers to figure out how to get a moron device to navigate the terrain in front of it. They ended up with Perseverance performing autonomous drives of hundreds of meters. I think that's all heuristics with some recognition stuff in there. Then we have current neural networks that are trained on tasks, and Optimus is our poster child there.

So there's no reason that a robot in space couldn't be trained on a variety of tasks, with remote operators directing the robot from task to task. The duration/scope of the task would generally match with the light round trip time to the robot. So a robot on Mars would need to be able to operate autonomously for up to 25 minutes at a stretch.

If any of this happens, I would certainly expect it to begin at direct teleoperation. That would eliminate the need for 99% of suited operations by people. But I don't expect much enthusiasm for that until we start actually doing something productive in a location like the Moon. Then we'll stop being romantic about the spirit of adventure or the need for humanity to explore and get down to efficient operations. It's somewhat like the distinction between artisans being romantic about their relationship with the materials they use, and industrial processes mercilessly cranking out product.

 

[scaesare]

I'd need an example. It's getting more and more difficult to postulate something that a person can do better than a machine and a person combined. The one situation that comes to mind for me is communications problems - severing the link between person and machine. If control of a device is wireless, then you could get interference, preventing remote use. If control of a device is wired, then the wire could break. A person brings agency no matter where they go, but that agency is limited to whatever that one person can bring. That is, the person would presumably also be cut off from external communications in that same situation, and they'd be left to their own devices, so you'd really want reliable communications no matter what.

Well, there are lots of mechanical actions where humans are far superior to robots. This is evidenced by looking at Optimus and the Boston Dynamics rigs... So for standard processes that are planned, (I.e. regular maintenance, etc...), it's likely that robotics could be trained, and the equipment designed to get the job done now. And I suspect if the entire craft and tools sets were designed with a "robotics first" principle, that you could cover 99%+ of things. But for unanticipated situations, I suspect you are going to want the option of human intervention.

What does moving human bodies off the planet accomplish? If you're thinking of Elon's argument about multiplanetary species, it's a vacuous argument. Any colony off planet is 100 times more likely to be wiped out than our colony here on Earth. Controlling the space around us is worth pursuing so that any existential threats from passing rocks can be dealt with, but that's about it. And we don't need boots in space to do that.

Humanity's greatest existential threat is humanity itself, and we should be laboring to solve our physiological and psychological shortcomings far more aggressively than figuring out how to move bodies around in space.

It does seem unlikely that terraforming a planet is workable. A long-term habitat is plausible. And I agree that there are lots of issues to be dealt with here...

That having been said, people are explorers and appreciate adventure. There are not a lot of reasons to go to the bottom of the Mariana Trench when a submersible will show you what's there. Not a lot of reason to climb Everest when a drone could get you pics. Yet people do, not because of any existential threat, but because "it's there".

 

[JB47394]

And I suspect if the entire craft and tools sets were designed with a "robotics first" principle, that you could cover 99%+ of things.

That's the way I'm looking at it.

That having been said, people are explorers and appreciate adventure.

This is where I disagree. We have explorers, but humanity is not an exploring people. We have many different motivations across humanity, and many in larger numbers than explorers and adventurers, yet we don't characterize humanity along those lines. We only do it with exploration because it's so impactful when new things are discovered. Saying that humanity is a bunch of foodies doesn't carry quite the same significance.

 

[scaesare]

That's the way I'm looking at it.


This is where I disagree. We have explorers, but humanity is not an exploring people. We have many different motivations across humanity, and many in larger numbers than explorers and adventurers, yet we don't characterize humanity along those lines. We only do it with exploration because it's so impactful when new things are discovered. Saying that humanity is a bunch of foodies doesn't carry quite the same significance.

I think this may be an issue of how terms are used. Attributing a behavioral characteristic to the race as a whole doesn't necessarily imply 100% of members have that trait. And often the magnitude of the accomplishment offsets the percentage of people who do it.

Humans are lovers, creatures of habit, problem solvers, etc... yet there are cases where people are not that way. Humans are space travelers, despite only vast minority ever having been there. I think it's widely held that humans are explorers and adventurers...

Even if only 0.01% of folks (1 out of 10,000) are interested in a venture, that's >800,000 folks...

 

[JB47394]

Even if only 0.01% of folks (1 out of 10,000) are interested in a venture, that's >800,000 folks...

Right. And I'd say that there are explorers among us, not that humans are explorers. It's an important distinction, and it is not maintained when people talk about humanity reaching out into space. It won't be humanity, but rather some people who are obsessed with that sort of thing.

In searching on this topic, it appears that polls find that Americans and British run around 35% interest in doing something like visiting the Moon as a tourist - where money was not an issue. And I think that removing money is a fair way to ask about true interest in something like that. But what isn't included in the question is what sort of conditions they'd face. Is it going to be like a cruise ship, or is it going to be like visiting McMurdo Station in the Antarctic? I can see 35% opting for the cruise ship experience, but I suspect the numbers would drop towards 1% for the latter. It's still a huge number of people, but it's not indicative of a characteristic of humanity.

So if such a small portion of the country is interested, then public money shouldn't be used for it. It should be kept a private venture. Thank goodness we're headed in that direction now.