4 ms·

As interesting as this is, and no doubt useful for the pioneering missions to Mars, most of these concerns are rather negated by the plan to colonise Mars. Look

As interesting as this is, and no doubt useful for the pioneering missions to Mars, most of these concerns are rather negated by the plan to colonise Mars. Looking at the Elon Musk plan he is talking about taking 100 people at a time IIRC. This allows social groups to form, and allows breaks from the norm by the ability to visit others. If we are talking about 100's at a time, then there would be doctors, engineers, surgical facilities, public meeting areas etc. Presumably the initial settlement will take place in one place not in lots of isolated areas? Early trips presumably would be setting up the space-port and living facilities, making rocket-fuel etc. I think with work to do and with more people and more space to wander around the social problems would be rather easier to bear

pbhjpbhj 8y ago
Some separated and independently operable facilities would be useful to avoid losing the whole project to a meteor (or seismic activity? or weather?).
- gonzo41 8y ago
  How far apart are you going to put them? Remember a few years back when that sedan size meteor hit a frozen lake in Russia. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBLjB5qavxY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBLjB5qavxY It was breaking windows many kms away. Around 3:10
  - pbhjpbhj 8y ago
    Obviously you can't mitigate all risks. Meteoroids presumably are more devastating still because of the thin atmosphere. Some interesting analysis - http://spaceacademy.net.au/env/planet/marsmtrts.htm http://spaceacademy.net.au/env/planet/marsmtrts.htm
    - geezerjay 8y ago
      It is also worth noting that mars meteoroids have been so devastating that material ejected from their impact has subsequently hit earth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martian_meteorite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martian_meteorite
Nokinside 8y ago
Visiting Mars few times, then the public losing the interest is the most likely scenario. Mars Colonization in our lifetime is fantasy. Not necessarily from technical but from purely economic perspective. You can't make near time colony self sufficient and maintaining it would require billions in subsidies year after year.
- annerajb 8y ago
  Sounds cheap. All of Earth's space countries could pay a billion or two a year and pay it easily. At least initially while it grows.
  - Nokinside 8y ago
    Billions. It might cost 20 billion per year (the whole NASA budget) or several times of that. Economically speaking Mars would not achieve economies of scale needed for becoming self sustaining. Manufacturing every component for higher safety standards than commercial aircraft or nuclear submarine is expensive. Building whole society that works in safety critical environment 24/7, starting from daycare and ending with microprocessor and chemical plants is just fantasy in the near future. Maybe in 100 or 150 years we can start dreaming.
- rory096 8y ago
  >Visiting Mars few times, then the public losing the interest is the most likely scenario. That's why colonization must start on the first mission. Flags and footprints missions are self-defeating. >You can't make near time colony self sufficient and maintaining it would require billions in subsidies year after year. The US alone already spends $5 billion per year on ISS.
  - Nokinside 8y ago
    >The US alone already spends $5 billion per year on ISS. ISS has crew of 6 located 400 km from the surface of the Earth. In the emergency they can leave the station in minutes (in two Soyuz capsules). Time between the decision to leave and landing in Kazakhstan is 3.5 hours or less.
petre 8y ago
Sending 100 people at a time to on a near suicide mission is quite a dumb thing to do. You realize that bringing them back might turn out to be very difficult, that is if they survive the trip to Mars and the landing. Also the infrastructure to do so will be quite expensive. We've sent robotic gear to Mars and most of it has failed. Gear that doesn't require air to breathe, water to drink, food to eat and that can be just abandoned there.
- jimnotgym 8y ago
  > Sending 100 people at a time to on a near suicide mission is quite a dumb thing to do. Tell Elon, not me > We've sent robotic gear to Mars and most of it has failed. Gear that doesn't require air to breathe, water to drink, food to eat and that can be just abandoned there. Whilst humans appear squishy and delicate compared to a robot, unlike machines they are very adaptable. For instance a robot that is a million miles away with a broken power supply lead is lost because even a simple repair is impossible. An air supply unit that breaks to a room with humans in has a much better chance of being repaired by the humans. The humans could abandon that room, wear space suits for a while, fly home or fix it with duct tape. There is no reason top believe it is harder for humans to survive, just because the robots find it hard.
  - lttlrck 8y ago
    A broken power supply lead might not be the best example given what happened to the human on Hawaii.
- skissane 8y ago
  > You realize that bringing them back might turn out to be very difficult Maybe that's the point, the "emotional blackmail" approach to space funding? Apollo could be cancelled because cancelling Apollo didn't involve abandoning anyone to death. If people are stuck on Mars with no way to return, then indefinite regular resupply trips will become necessary and it will be politically impossible to cancel the budget for them. The space program ceases to be discretionary spending. (Even if it is a private mission, e.g. SpaceX–if US citizens on Mars are reliant on a private corporation for their continued life, then the US Congress may find irresistible the urge to provide public support to that corporation or to have NASA take over its resupply functions.)

pbhjpbhj 8y ago

Some separated and independently operable facilities would be useful to avoid losing the whole project to a meteor (or seismic activity? or weather?).

gonzo41 8y ago
How far apart are you going to put them? Remember a few years back when that sedan size meteor hit a frozen lake in Russia. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBLjB5qavxY https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=fBLjB5qavxY It was breaking windows many kms away. Around 3:10
- pbhjpbhj 8y ago
  Obviously you can't mitigate all risks. Meteoroids presumably are more devastating still because of the thin atmosphere. Some interesting analysis - http://spaceacademy.net.au/env/planet/marsmtrts.htm http://spaceacademy.net.au/env/planet/marsmtrts.htm
  - geezerjay 8y ago
    It is also worth noting that mars meteoroids have been so devastating that material ejected from their impact has subsequently hit earth. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martian_meteorite https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Martian_meteorite

Nokinside 8y ago

Visiting Mars few times, then the public losing the interest is the most likely scenario. Mars Colonization in our lifetime is fantasy. Not necessarily from technical but from purely economic perspective. You can't make near time colony self sufficient and maintaining it would require billions in subsidies year after year.

annerajb 8y ago
Sounds cheap. All of Earth's space countries could pay a billion or two a year and pay it easily. At least initially while it grows.
- Nokinside 8y ago
  Billions. It might cost 20 billion per year (the whole NASA budget) or several times of that. Economically speaking Mars would not achieve economies of scale needed for becoming self sustaining. Manufacturing every component for higher safety standards than commercial aircraft or nuclear submarine is expensive. Building whole society that works in safety critical environment 24/7, starting from daycare and ending with microprocessor and chemical plants is just fantasy in the near future. Maybe in 100 or 150 years we can start dreaming.
rory096 8y ago
>Visiting Mars few times, then the public losing the interest is the most likely scenario. That's why colonization must start on the first mission. Flags and footprints missions are self-defeating. >You can't make near time colony self sufficient and maintaining it would require billions in subsidies year after year. The US alone already spends $5 billion per year on ISS.
- Nokinside 8y ago
  >The US alone already spends $5 billion per year on ISS. ISS has crew of 6 located 400 km from the surface of the Earth. In the emergency they can leave the station in minutes (in two Soyuz capsules). Time between the decision to leave and landing in Kazakhstan is 3.5 hours or less.

petre 8y ago

Sending 100 people at a time to on a near suicide mission is quite a dumb thing to do. You realize that bringing them back might turn out to be very difficult, that is if they survive the trip to Mars and the landing. Also the infrastructure to do so will be quite expensive. We've sent robotic gear to Mars and most of it has failed. Gear that doesn't require air to breathe, water to drink, food to eat and that can be just abandoned there.

jimnotgym 8y ago
> Sending 100 people at a time to on a near suicide mission is quite a dumb thing to do. Tell Elon, not me > We've sent robotic gear to Mars and most of it has failed. Gear that doesn't require air to breathe, water to drink, food to eat and that can be just abandoned there. Whilst humans appear squishy and delicate compared to a robot, unlike machines they are very adaptable. For instance a robot that is a million miles away with a broken power supply lead is lost because even a simple repair is impossible. An air supply unit that breaks to a room with humans in has a much better chance of being repaired by the humans. The humans could abandon that room, wear space suits for a while, fly home or fix it with duct tape. There is no reason top believe it is harder for humans to survive, just because the robots find it hard.
- lttlrck 8y ago
  A broken power supply lead might not be the best example given what happened to the human on Hawaii.
skissane 8y ago
> You realize that bringing them back might turn out to be very difficult Maybe that's the point, the "emotional blackmail" approach to space funding? Apollo could be cancelled because cancelling Apollo didn't involve abandoning anyone to death. If people are stuck on Mars with no way to return, then indefinite regular resupply trips will become necessary and it will be politically impossible to cancel the budget for them. The space program ceases to be discretionary spending. (Even if it is a private mission, e.g. SpaceX–if US citizens on Mars are reliant on a private corporation for their continued life, then the US Congress may find irresistible the urge to provide public support to that corporation or to have NASA take over its resupply functions.)