4 ms·

if we can't make it to mars (and,imho,we probably can't) then maybe we have the answer to the fermi paradox - it's to effing difficult.

maxerickson 4y ago
What's the standard for "make it"? A marginal mission that didn't do much other than get someone there could probably be done on a pretty short timeline.
- alwillis 4y ago
  > A marginal mission that didn't do much other than get someone there could probably be done on a pretty short timeline. Did you read the article? There’s no such thing as a marginal Mars mission. Short summary: we don’t have a way to keep a crew alive in space for the 21 months that would be required to get to Mars and back. And there’s nothing in the foreseeable future (the next 10–15 years) that changes that. How do you feed a crew for that long when getting food sent from Earth (like the space station) is not an option. That’s one of thousands of major issues that need to be solved before even attempting a test of a Mars flight. It took 10 Apollo test missions before Apollo 11 landed on the moon, a total of about 6 days total for the trip to the moon and back. (Of course every Mercury and Gemini flight was also a test for the moon but I’m trying to keep it simple). A trip to Mars and back is nearly 1000 days. It’s not gonna happen anytime soon.
  - kiratp 4y ago
    > And there’s nothing in the foreseeable future (the next 10–15 years) that changes that. If we cannot, at a nation-state level, apply ourselves to 30-50 year goals, we might as well just give up on the survival of humanity.
  - maxerickson 4y ago
    From an economic capacity and technological perspective, we absolutely could build a vessel that had enough radiation shielding and thrust to get some people there (and probably even back). No need for a 1,000 day time frame. That's not enough to ensure the health and safety of the crew of course, but "marginal" is different than "ensure". Of course that isn't politically possible, but the other poster seemed to be talking about our capacity as a civilization in their comment, and really, the NASA outline presented in the article doesn't do much more to demonstrate it than my silly mission above. The "interesting" level for a civilization would be to build an actual self sustaining colony on Mars, and we probably don't currently have the capacity to do that (the challenges go from having the equipment needed to being able to manufacture it).
- m4rtink 4y ago
  You do realize that unlike Kerbals, humans need to eat and breath during a space mission ? ;-) On a more serious note, I'm really sure you could mount a very suicidal one way mission to Mars with current (and possibly 60s) technology. Could be an interesting narrative in a SF book - Project Hail Mary from Andy Weir actually comes very close, but takes it even further.
rqtwteye 4y ago
We can make it to Mars if we put enough effort into it. The question is whether now is a good time or if we should wait for progress in robotics and other areas. I think for now a permanent moon base makes way more sense.
- Ekaros 4y ago
  I don't really understand the concept of jumping straight to Mars. With every complexity involved. First we should do sensible test runs on Earth, next Moon where we have chance to get anyone out in a few days. And only then when we have proven most aspect workable aim for Mars. The costs probably aren't that much higher anyway.
  - m4rtink 4y ago
    Not just test runs - infrastructure and ideally resource extraction. The faster we don't have to launch every gram from earth the quicker the really interesting space efforts can get going!
foreverobama 4y ago
[dead]

maxerickson 4y ago

What's the standard for "make it"? A marginal mission that didn't do much other than get someone there could probably be done on a pretty short timeline.

alwillis 4y ago
> A marginal mission that didn't do much other than get someone there could probably be done on a pretty short timeline. Did you read the article? There’s no such thing as a marginal Mars mission. Short summary: we don’t have a way to keep a crew alive in space for the 21 months that would be required to get to Mars and back. And there’s nothing in the foreseeable future (the next 10–15 years) that changes that. How do you feed a crew for that long when getting food sent from Earth (like the space station) is not an option. That’s one of thousands of major issues that need to be solved before even attempting a test of a Mars flight. It took 10 Apollo test missions before Apollo 11 landed on the moon, a total of about 6 days total for the trip to the moon and back. (Of course every Mercury and Gemini flight was also a test for the moon but I’m trying to keep it simple). A trip to Mars and back is nearly 1000 days. It’s not gonna happen anytime soon.
- kiratp 4y ago
  > And there’s nothing in the foreseeable future (the next 10–15 years) that changes that. If we cannot, at a nation-state level, apply ourselves to 30-50 year goals, we might as well just give up on the survival of humanity.
- maxerickson 4y ago
  From an economic capacity and technological perspective, we absolutely could build a vessel that had enough radiation shielding and thrust to get some people there (and probably even back). No need for a 1,000 day time frame. That's not enough to ensure the health and safety of the crew of course, but "marginal" is different than "ensure". Of course that isn't politically possible, but the other poster seemed to be talking about our capacity as a civilization in their comment, and really, the NASA outline presented in the article doesn't do much more to demonstrate it than my silly mission above. The "interesting" level for a civilization would be to build an actual self sustaining colony on Mars, and we probably don't currently have the capacity to do that (the challenges go from having the equipment needed to being able to manufacture it).
m4rtink 4y ago
You do realize that unlike Kerbals, humans need to eat and breath during a space mission ? ;-) On a more serious note, I'm really sure you could mount a very suicidal one way mission to Mars with current (and possibly 60s) technology. Could be an interesting narrative in a SF book - Project Hail Mary from Andy Weir actually comes very close, but takes it even further.

rqtwteye 4y ago

We can make it to Mars if we put enough effort into it. The question is whether now is a good time or if we should wait for progress in robotics and other areas. I think for now a permanent moon base makes way more sense.

Ekaros 4y ago
I don't really understand the concept of jumping straight to Mars. With every complexity involved. First we should do sensible test runs on Earth, next Moon where we have chance to get anyone out in a few days. And only then when we have proven most aspect workable aim for Mars. The costs probably aren't that much higher anyway.
- m4rtink 4y ago
  Not just test runs - infrastructure and ideally resource extraction. The faster we don't have to launch every gram from earth the quicker the really interesting space efforts can get going!

foreverobama 4y ago

[dead]