3 ms·

None of issues you listed matter at all if launching stuff to space is cost prohibitive. Without cheap space access they are not even worth properly researchin

None of issues you listed matter at all if launching stuff to space is cost prohibitive. Without cheap space access they are not even worth properly researching. > One where all of the waste we produce can be reused to create new drinkable water, air and food, and to reliably continue to do so between Mars launch windows. None of that is as big of an issue if you can launch often and a lot of stuff. In the limit you don't need to recycle anything and everything has multiple spares. You can also launch outside direct constraints of Hohmann transfer orbit. Again, payload limitations and time are the main reasons we use Hohmann transfer orbits. > The second biggest is probably avoiding contamination of Mars, if we actually care about exploring one of the biggest mysteries of life - has it arisen only on Earth? Are there other modes of life possible, and what do they look like? We will not avoid contamination. It's impossible to do. Where humans go our microbiome will follow. I personally think we should intentionally seed all celestial bodies with life as soon as possible anyway. If we find life in our solar system (especially life independent from Earth) we should become a lot more aggressive with space settlement, because it would make "great filter" ahead of us hypothesis a lot more likely. Settlement outside solar system should become one of humanity priorities as a matter of survival. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Great_Filter > The third biggest challenge is human psychology and physiology Going to Mars can be a suicide mission and you will still find people who will be willing to go. Not a showstopper for the willing. > Thinking about an actual colony with some prospect of perpetual habitation being in orders of magnitude more issues First things first.

tsimionescu 4y ago
> Without cheap space access they are not even worth properly researching. On the contrary - these are all useful technologies to the goal of preserving human life. If we had the ability to create self-sustaining colonies in the most extremely harsh conditions on Earth (a necessary step to being able to colonize any other place), we would have a much greater guarantee that humanity would survive a disaster like a huge asteroid/super volcano/deadly plague/etc. We could probably also use the technologies developed for other uses - better homes, more sustainable agriculture etc. We could also work on miniaturizing the things and then start thinking about sending them in space, perhaps even with currently existing rockets. > None of that is as big of an issue if you can launch often and a lot of stuff. In the limit you don't need to recycle anything and everything has multiple spares. You can also launch outside direct constraints of Hohmann transfer orbit. Again, payload limitations and time are the main reasons we use Hohmann transfer orbits. It's far less likely that it's possible to reach the level of cheapness you talk about at all, given the hard physical constraints on rocket masses and available fuels. > We will not avoid contamination. It's impossible to do. Where humans go our microbiome will follow. Exactly - hence why humans shouldn't be going to Mars until we have studied the hell out of any possible local life and become convinced we have learned all we can on the subject. > Going to Mars can be a suicide mission and you will still find people who will be willing to go. What would be the goals of the mission? Why do you think people desperate enough to accept certain death will be able to achieve said goals or even care about them once they reach the surface? > First things first. Exactly my (and the article's) point. First you send robots to Mars while developing colony technologies on Earth, then you start thinking about sending humans to Mars.
- oblio 4y ago
  > Exactly - hence why humans shouldn't be going to Mars until we have studied the hell out of any possible local life and become convinced we have learned all we can on the subject. That's not how people work. People will go to Mars for curiosity, greed, fame, or some higher level desire (possibly religious) not necessarily in that order. Odds of Mars being explored à la Star Trek are infinitesimal, I'd give that hope up. We can explore how life appeared on planets in other solar systems.
  - tsimionescu 4y ago
    It has worked so far for Antarctica, and saying "it's never going to work" while advocating for it not working is not a convincing argument.
    - m4rtink 4y ago
      It has worked due to the treaty being worked out in early cold war, when both East and West were already planning military operations and bases in Antarctica - that way, neither side could have it and they were fine with it, sparing a considerable expense. It has held in place since then by both inertia & similar "if I can't have the resources, no one can" and other resource sources still being usually cheaper to mine.
- Isinlor 4y ago
  > What would be the goals of the mission? Showing that's it's possible right now within reasonable budget. That's the fundamental difference in logic here. The goal is to get people to Mars as soon as possible. Not to delay it for as long as possible. > Exactly - hence why humans shouldn't be going to Mars until we have studied the hell out of any possible local life and become convinced we have learned all we can on the subject. This is never going to happen. Even on Earth people are not 100% convinced that "shadow biosphere" doesn't exists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_biosphere https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_biosphere > It's far less likely that it's possible to reach the level of cheapness you talk about at all Starship HLS right now is being build with aim at 100 metric tonnes to the Moon vs. NASA requirement of 2 metric tonnes. Starship HLS allows to take 50x spares of everything NASA thought would be required for the Moon landing. And it's costing NASA as much as gross earning of the Avatar movie - $2.9B.
gammarator 4y ago
> Settlement outside solar system should become one of humanity priorities as a matter of survival. > Going to Mars can be a suicide mission These goals seem contradictory.

tsimionescu 4y ago

> Without cheap space access they are not even worth properly researching. On the contrary - these are all useful technologies to the goal of preserving human life. If we had the ability to create self-sustaining colonies in the most extremely harsh conditions on Earth (a necessary step to being able to colonize any other place), we would have a much greater guarantee that humanity would survive a disaster like a huge asteroid/super volcano/deadly plague/etc. We could probably also use the technologies developed for other uses - better homes, more sustainable agriculture etc. We could also work on miniaturizing the things and then start thinking about sending them in space, perhaps even with currently existing rockets. > None of that is as big of an issue if you can launch often and a lot of stuff. In the limit you don't need to recycle anything and everything has multiple spares. You can also launch outside direct constraints of Hohmann transfer orbit. Again, payload limitations and time are the main reasons we use Hohmann transfer orbits. It's far less likely that it's possible to reach the level of cheapness you talk about at all, given the hard physical constraints on rocket masses and available fuels. > We will not avoid contamination. It's impossible to do. Where humans go our microbiome will follow. Exactly - hence why humans shouldn't be going to Mars until we have studied the hell out of any possible local life and become convinced we have learned all we can on the subject. > Going to Mars can be a suicide mission and you will still find people who will be willing to go. What would be the goals of the mission? Why do you think people desperate enough to accept certain death will be able to achieve said goals or even care about them once they reach the surface? > First things first. Exactly my (and the article's) point. First you send robots to Mars while developing colony technologies on Earth, then you start thinking about sending humans to Mars.

oblio 4y ago
> Exactly - hence why humans shouldn't be going to Mars until we have studied the hell out of any possible local life and become convinced we have learned all we can on the subject. That's not how people work. People will go to Mars for curiosity, greed, fame, or some higher level desire (possibly religious) not necessarily in that order. Odds of Mars being explored à la Star Trek are infinitesimal, I'd give that hope up. We can explore how life appeared on planets in other solar systems.
- tsimionescu 4y ago
  It has worked so far for Antarctica, and saying "it's never going to work" while advocating for it not working is not a convincing argument.
  - m4rtink 4y ago
    It has worked due to the treaty being worked out in early cold war, when both East and West were already planning military operations and bases in Antarctica - that way, neither side could have it and they were fine with it, sparing a considerable expense. It has held in place since then by both inertia & similar "if I can't have the resources, no one can" and other resource sources still being usually cheaper to mine.
Isinlor 4y ago
> What would be the goals of the mission? Showing that's it's possible right now within reasonable budget. That's the fundamental difference in logic here. The goal is to get people to Mars as soon as possible. Not to delay it for as long as possible. > Exactly - hence why humans shouldn't be going to Mars until we have studied the hell out of any possible local life and become convinced we have learned all we can on the subject. This is never going to happen. Even on Earth people are not 100% convinced that "shadow biosphere" doesn't exists. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_biosphere https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Shadow_biosphere > It's far less likely that it's possible to reach the level of cheapness you talk about at all Starship HLS right now is being build with aim at 100 metric tonnes to the Moon vs. NASA requirement of 2 metric tonnes. Starship HLS allows to take 50x spares of everything NASA thought would be required for the Moon landing. And it's costing NASA as much as gross earning of the Avatar movie - $2.9B.

gammarator 4y ago

> Settlement outside solar system should become one of humanity priorities as a matter of survival. > Going to Mars can be a suicide mission These goals seem contradictory.