3 ms·

Not at all. It's not about the big picture goal but about the individual missions. There's effectively 0 risk that the big picture goal of getting people to, an

by rjf72 7y ago

Not at all. It's not about the big picture goal but about the individual missions. There's effectively 0 risk that the big picture goal of getting people to, and ultimately colonizing, Mars will fail. It's a question of when, not if. But the individual missions, especially the early ones, to Mars will involve a high degree of risk. Getting to low earth orbit, by contrast, is trivial. In spite of this we've sent fewer than 600 people to LEO, and have lost at least 30 astronauts in the process of it [1]. 5% of our astronauts have lost their lives just getting to and from low earth orbit! This is already pushing the edge of NASA's risk tolerance, which goes a long ways towards explaining why NASA hasn't sent a man beyond LEO in 47 years. And missions to Mars are substantially more complex and risky than getting to and from LEO. No matter how safe we try to make things, people will die in the process of what ultimately will be the colonization of Mars. This means it's a mission that NASA is unable to take on, as they have become intolerant of risk. But at the same time it's a mission that must be executed. And for this it's a very good thing that we're managing to move beyond dependence upon government agencies for progress in space. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight-related_accidents_and_incidents https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_spaceflight-related_ac...

mongol 7y ago
Do you mean that it is absolutely, without a doubt, certain that man will colonize Mars and that it will succeed?
- rjf72 7y ago
  We've breached countless barriers that, at one point, seemed impossible or insurmountably challenging. Crossing the ocean by boat - later by plane, breaking the sound barrier in human flight, living in 'unlivable' locations on Earth, getting into space, putting a man on the moon, living in space for months at a time, and so on. But one important factor here is that well before we accomplished any of these, it became evident that we eventually would. And that's because the technologies involved were no longer fantasy. What I mean here is that for a person in the 18th century putting a man into space was fantasy. We could foresee it as maybe being possible, but it might also be that the technologies to achieve such might simply never be able to be developed. By contrast, by the earlier part of 20th century century it became clear that such an achievement not only could, but would happen - sooner or later. The technologies necessary were no longer fantasy. And so all that remained was bearing the costs and pushing forward. And we've now long since passed the same point for Mars. We can, and will, put men on Mars - sooner or later. And this is what I was referring to by 0 risk of failure - technical failures, as in some insurmountable roadblock that simply makes further progress impossible. Colonization is of course a social question, which is going to inherently be much more subjective than a technical one. But I find it not only difficult, but impossible, to imagine any scenario where humans, all, somehow decide to simply stay on a single planet. And if we assume that humans will leave Earth, Mars is arguably the most logical first permanent destination. Mineral rich, water rich, atmosphere with CO2 (sabatier reaction for methane + water), large land mass, reasonable gravity, reasonable temperature extremes, near identical day-night cycle, etc. Big downsides are extremely low atmospheric pressure which is of course unbreathable, as well as high radiation exposure.
  - eesmith 7y ago
    We can certainly send someone to Mars. But doing so is "of course a social question" ... and you haven't answered the question of why must do it now. You've used the same rhetorical constructions that I've read in books written before I was born. They also argued that then was the time. Why were they wrong, and you are right? Oh, and those proposing undersea cities made many of the same arguments. I'll point out that "living in 'unlivable' locations on Earth" can be done with neolithic technology, so that's a rather odd one to list. Crossing the ocean by boat" through stages was something the ancient Polynesians did without metal. And 'breaking the sound barrier in human flight' hasn't yet proven to be economically feasible for general passenger services. As for "more subjective than a technical one" ... there's a major problem of how to create a self-sustaining ecosystem, much less one where the people who live in it have enough time to train the next generation to run the ecosystem.

by rjf72 7y ago

mongol 7y ago

Do you mean that it is absolutely, without a doubt, certain that man will colonize Mars and that it will succeed?

rjf72 7y ago
We've breached countless barriers that, at one point, seemed impossible or insurmountably challenging. Crossing the ocean by boat - later by plane, breaking the sound barrier in human flight, living in 'unlivable' locations on Earth, getting into space, putting a man on the moon, living in space for months at a time, and so on. But one important factor here is that well before we accomplished any of these, it became evident that we eventually would. And that's because the technologies involved were no longer fantasy. What I mean here is that for a person in the 18th century putting a man into space was fantasy. We could foresee it as maybe being possible, but it might also be that the technologies to achieve such might simply never be able to be developed. By contrast, by the earlier part of 20th century century it became clear that such an achievement not only could, but would happen - sooner or later. The technologies necessary were no longer fantasy. And so all that remained was bearing the costs and pushing forward. And we've now long since passed the same point for Mars. We can, and will, put men on Mars - sooner or later. And this is what I was referring to by 0 risk of failure - technical failures, as in some insurmountable roadblock that simply makes further progress impossible. Colonization is of course a social question, which is going to inherently be much more subjective than a technical one. But I find it not only difficult, but impossible, to imagine any scenario where humans, all, somehow decide to simply stay on a single planet. And if we assume that humans will leave Earth, Mars is arguably the most logical first permanent destination. Mineral rich, water rich, atmosphere with CO2 (sabatier reaction for methane + water), large land mass, reasonable gravity, reasonable temperature extremes, near identical day-night cycle, etc. Big downsides are extremely low atmospheric pressure which is of course unbreathable, as well as high radiation exposure.
- eesmith 7y ago
  We can certainly send someone to Mars. But doing so is "of course a social question" ... and you haven't answered the question of why must do it now. You've used the same rhetorical constructions that I've read in books written before I was born. They also argued that then was the time. Why were they wrong, and you are right? Oh, and those proposing undersea cities made many of the same arguments. I'll point out that "living in 'unlivable' locations on Earth" can be done with neolithic technology, so that's a rather odd one to list. Crossing the ocean by boat" through stages was something the ancient Polynesians did without metal. And 'breaking the sound barrier in human flight' hasn't yet proven to be economically feasible for general passenger services. As for "more subjective than a technical one" ... there's a major problem of how to create a self-sustaining ecosystem, much less one where the people who live in it have enough time to train the next generation to run the ecosystem.