-
Want to remove ads? Register an account and login to see fewer ads, and become a Supporting Member to remove almost all ads.
Disagree. It has everything to do with being logical. If you believe as Elon does that there is a significant chance that humanity will become extinct in the next few thousand or hundred thousand years (whether because of radical climate change or nuclear war or asteroid impact) if humans remain confined to earth, then Mars is the most sensible place to establish a permanent human colony of sufficient size (say a million or more people, yes that will take centuries) to ensure the long term survival of the human species. In the 3 billion plus years of life on earth, the number of species that have gone extinct outnumbers the current number of species by orders of magnitude. There is no logical reason to expect that H. sapiens will escape the same fate if it remains earthbound.
Human technology is just reaching the point where it is theoretically feasible to establish a permanent colony on Mars. So now is the time to do that. No compelling reason to postpone doing that. Just get on with it, ignore the naysayers, do it! There are plenty of people who are ready to go.
Chet
Member
I would like to have someone explain to me just what the required technology will be to populate Mars, or indeed any other Celestial body.
That question is far, far too broad to be fully answered in the form you asked it.
In similarly broad terms, the technology required would be the technology to get an adequate population there, and the technology to keep them alive and safe there.
The question can't be answered in more detail because some of it depends on our level of commitment. If the whole planet came together and gave up everything beyond their bare existence, we probably have the means to put a suitable twenty or thirty thousand person group onto the planet now - after a few years of building things.
But that would require a level of investment and sacrifice that's pretty much unprecedented, and would involve spending billions of dollars of investment on putting each person there - so that's almost certainly not going to happen.
Probably the biggest thing we need to make space colonization practical that we don't have is a much cheaper way to get things into orbit. The Biodomes proved that we can build a working ecosystem from scratch, and we've demonstrated both the ability to keep things safe in space and to land them safely. It's just too expensive.
There are a few suggestions out there for radical ways of reducing cost. The Beanstalk/Space Elevator is an insanely massive industrial project that also requires materials stronger than anything we know of today. My own favorite (still very ambitious) idea is the Vacuum Mountain/Rail Gun - a massive structure that stretches up above the stratosphere, and thus can stay close to vacuum conditions inside when the top is opened, with a rail gun down the center for launching payloads into space (if they are going to orbit, you still have to provide some onboard thrust to circularize, but the railgun can give you the altitude with no reaction mass used.)
In the mean time, SpaceX is quietly working on the evolutionary approach to reduced costs - being able to reuse the lower stage on Dragon doesn't save any reaction mass, but it means fewer dollar spent building rocket parts.
If someone would just build a working reactionless drive, all of this would get so much simpler...
It's a drive that violates one of the basic principles of physics. See Reactionless drive - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
Quote: "A reactionless drive (also known by many other names, including as an inertial propulsion engine, a reactionless thruster, a reactionless engine, a bootstrap drive or an inertia drive) is a device to generate motion without a propellant, presumably in contradiction to the law of conservation of momentum."
No such drive exists, nor is it likely to. But human knowledge of the universe is -- news flash -- incomplete, so maybe in the future it will exist.
Quote: "A reactionless drive (also known by many other names, including as an inertial propulsion engine, a reactionless thruster, a reactionless engine, a bootstrap drive or an inertia drive) is a device to generate motion without a propellant, presumably in contradiction to the law of conservation of momentum."
No such drive exists, nor is it likely to. But human knowledge of the universe is -- news flash -- incomplete, so maybe in the future it will exist.
A concept out of science fiction. It develops kinetic energy without having to throw mass out the back.
So far, we don't really have a theoretical basis for such a thing to work from, though that Chinese microwave bell might be the first step towards reactionless - assuming we can figure out why it works and that it isn't some sort of measurement mistake.
For humans to exist on Mars, in a nutshell they need to recreate an earth-like environment in an enclosed structure that protects them from solar radiation, they need a breathable atmosphere within a narrow range of pressure, a controlled temperature range, water, and of course food.
Most structures for long term habitation on Mars will likely be built below ground. They will need to be properly sealed, and then pressurized. Controlling the temperature in such habitats should not be too difficult. Obviously, energy sources will be needed. One source would be solar energy generated like we do on earth, through PV panels. Another possible source would be a compact plutonium power plant that could be sent to Mars in its own launch vehicle, unmanned.
Mars contains a huge amount of oxygen in the form of CO2 in the atmosphere and frozen water in the soil and in the northern polar region. There are known ways of extracting oxygen and liquid water from those sources. I posted upthread a link to one such method. Have those ways been tested on Mars? Obviously not. But they are theoretically achievable and can be tested on Earth under Mars-like conditions.
Food could be grown on Mars in surface "greenhouse" type structures. It could be grown hydroponically or in Martian soil supplemented with human waste as fertilizer.
Rocket fuel can be produced on Mars from local resources using techniques described in Robert Zubrin's book "Mars Direct". That would provide the energy for taking people back to Earth if they so desired.
3D printers can be sent to Mars to manufacture things that humans will need. Of course for many centuries a lot of critical supplies will need to be sent to Mars on spacecraft.
Living on Mars will be tremendously difficult. Humans are tremendously resourceful.
Most structures for long term habitation on Mars will likely be built below ground. They will need to be properly sealed, and then pressurized. Controlling the temperature in such habitats should not be too difficult. Obviously, energy sources will be needed. One source would be solar energy generated like we do on earth, through PV panels. Another possible source would be a compact plutonium power plant that could be sent to Mars in its own launch vehicle, unmanned.
Mars contains a huge amount of oxygen in the form of CO2 in the atmosphere and frozen water in the soil and in the northern polar region. There are known ways of extracting oxygen and liquid water from those sources. I posted upthread a link to one such method. Have those ways been tested on Mars? Obviously not. But they are theoretically achievable and can be tested on Earth under Mars-like conditions.
Food could be grown on Mars in surface "greenhouse" type structures. It could be grown hydroponically or in Martian soil supplemented with human waste as fertilizer.
Rocket fuel can be produced on Mars from local resources using techniques described in Robert Zubrin's book "Mars Direct". That would provide the energy for taking people back to Earth if they so desired.
3D printers can be sent to Mars to manufacture things that humans will need. Of course for many centuries a lot of critical supplies will need to be sent to Mars on spacecraft.
Living on Mars will be tremendously difficult. Humans are tremendously resourceful.
Krugerrand
Meow
Please provide some evidence to support your assertion.
Humans have spent over a year on the ISS in zero G and they can function satisfactorily (reproduction in zero G has yet to be tested). Gravity on Mars is 0.38G. There is no evidence that is inadequate for humans to survive and reproduce. There is also no evidence it is adequate to support humans for many years. Personally, I doubt it will be a problem.
Is this what you are referring to? EmDrive?
NASA says puzzling new space drive can generate thrust without propellant
Johan
Ex got M3 in the divorce, waiting for EU Model Y!
There are many studies showing serious permanent damage to human health from only 12-18 months of exposure to microgravity, never mind years, or what the effect might be on development. The Wikipedia article is a good place to start.
There have been no studies of reproduction in animals, much less mammals, in microgravity AFAIK, but the attempts at analogous environments have been pretty discouraging. Here's one such study.
Since no experiments have been done for Mars gravity, but the experience in microgravity don't look promising, assuming that all will go well on Mars seems like a pretty optimistic assumption. Just because something works at 1g and has problems at 0g, doesn't mean that there won't be problems at .4g.
In general, when deciding that something might or might not be a problem for human health or reproduction, it seems to me that the burden of proof lies on the people saying it will be OK, not on the people saying it might be a problem. We've had all too many examples of things being introduced into our environment, e.g. Thalidomide, cloth flame retardants, that seemed fine until it was far too late. Until we've seen several generations of primates successfully live and reproduce in reduced gravity, anyone considering getting pregnant in such conditions is taking a huge risk with their offspring IMHO. For that matter, anyone taking a child is as well.
True. But 0.4G is very different from what ISS astronauts endure for over a year. They suffer bone loss, vision changes, and other maladies in prolonged microgravity, most of which corrects itself over time once they are back on earth.
I would not compare zero G to Thalidomide. That is ridiculous.
Living on Mars at 0.4G seems likely very possible. There will certainly be challenges. I am extremely skeptical that 0.4G will make human reproduction impossible. Certainly humans born on Mars will have different characteristics than those born on Earth.
SpaceX is taking humans to Mars regardless of any concerns over living in 0.4G, and there are plenty of volunteers anxious to go. The risk is on them.
Surviving is not enough. They must expand base. That is impossible if all resources are needed for surviving.
Have you tested how comfortable 3-D printed clothes are?
Have you tried to make any kind of clothing without large machinery?
Electronics cannot be 3-D printed. I doubt bearings can printed. 3-D printer need many good quality bearings.
Perhaps future martians should first repeat Biosphere II project:
What Went Wrong?
I agree with: 'there is a significant chance that humanity will become extinct in the next few thousand or hundred thousand years.'
Yes, nuclear war or meteorite might kill us all. Single terrorist could also kill all martians.
In worst case, climate change could start a collapse of civilization. It cannot kill us all. Earth has as much carbon as Venus, but most of it is in nonburnable minerals.
We should expand to space as fast as possible. Starting from Mars is too expensive and too dangerous. If first martians die, then we might not try again for long time. Mars base cannot produce anything for Earth. Except some videos. Moon base could do much more.
Now I would like to have very large space telescope which could tell us WTF this is:
Tabetha Boyajian: The most mysterious star in the universe | TED Talk | TED.com
It was found by Kepler satellite, which scanned very small fraction of sky. It cannot scan more, because there is no service man to fix it.
Yes, you've made that point, repeatedly.
This thread is about going to Mars, and Neil deGrasse Tyson's belief that private enterprise will never successfully colonize space initially, only governments can do that (in his opinion). I hope it stays on topic.
I am an admirer of Tyson but I disagree with him on that issue. His historical analogies fail in this instance. The worlds has changed enormously since European states sent out voyages of exploration centuries ago.
As was pointed out by others earlier in this thread, governments will only spend money on space exploration if the populace supports that spending. So far, the American and European populace's have not supported human missions to Mars. There isn't the political will to do it. Nor is there any political will to establish a base on the moon. Sure, NASA has plans for Mars missions, but those plans are severely fiscally constrained.
China has some capabilities in that area, and the Chinese government may decide to spend the money, but I think it will be on a manned moon mission, not on a Mars mission which is vastly more difficult.
Elon has the will and under his direction SpaceX is actively developing the necessary technology while also using SpaceX to make money to support his plans. If all goes well with Tesla, he will make a lot of money there. He has billionaire friends who may contribute. Even NASA may start contributing in a few years when it becomes clear that SpaceX is going to get to Mars a heck of a lot sooner than NASA is.
Elon may be able to enlist some commercial sponsors and investors also. I am expecting that to happen. Again, I think Tyson is wrong in assuming that no commercial entity will be willing to risk investing in Mars missions unless governments do all the hard work first.
Krugerrand
Meow
Oh, please. They can take underwear with them to wear under their space suits and other clothes. There's this fabric called denim that lasts a longgggggggggggg time. There are other fabrics that are also durable such that they can take enough clothing/cloth with them. They can take a sewing machine and make clothes. They can walk around naked if they want in their enclosed habitat. Seriously, you're concerned about the supply of clothing?!?!?!
They can take electronics with them. And bearings. Whatever.
Similar threads
