5 ms·

I would really like to see humans on Mars in my lifetime, but things like this make me wonder how close we are to actually getting there.

one_more_q 3y ago
Wait, them trying out if the concrete alone is strong enough to withstand the launch makes you wonder how close we are? I’m wondering about life support, producing fuel in Mars and a lot of other things, but the floor of the launch stand really does not bother me at all. People love to complain about spaceX and this gave them a great reason.
- dathinab 3y ago
  I mean intentional negligence re-framed in retrospective as a scientific test is always a good reason to complain, and if that wouldn't but a dent on the trust into a company acting responsible then people would have to be quite blind tbh. But yes the floor of the launch pad is really not something to worry about, I mean we know how to build safe launch pads since decades, we just have to do so.
- simiones 3y ago
  Look at it another way: if they can't even get the launch pad not to catastrophically fail and endanger the facility and all of their permits, why should we trust them to do anything else more complex much better?
  - inglor_cz 3y ago
    "why should we trust them to do anything else more complex much better?" Because the same people previously developed Falcon 9 Block V, the safest and most reliable launcher on record?
    - nocoiner 3y ago
      Isn’t Atlas V also 100% successful?
      - inglor_cz 3y ago
        True, but Falcon 9 Block V adds the partial reuse capability; while we can say that each Atlas V flew reliably once, we can say that many Falcon 9 first stages have flown reliably several times.
- matricaria 3y ago
  Yes it is part of the equation. Probably need to invent better concrete or a new concept first. But even more the way this has been handled, or rather not handled. There is so much that can fail. All in all I doubt it will happen soon. I remember a few years ago, SpaceX was selling seats for the mars mission. But maybe that’s just the Elon-way of doing things.
dathinab 3y ago
more important Even if climate change gets way worse and we contaminate our environment way more then we do now and additionally to all that have some additional nuclear escalations: It still would be WAY easier for humanity to continue to survive on earth then it is to do so on mars. Putting up a few human on a mini base on Mars, that's the _easy_ part. Even keeping that base alive for a few years is very easy compared to making the mars a viable/relevant option for humans future survival, and AFIKT that is still years, maybe decades away.
- matricaria 3y ago
  This narrative is so stupid, Mars will never be more inhabitable the Earth.
me_me_me 3y ago
Its not about getting there, but coming back (or in the least staying and surviving). And there are so many problems that need solving first before we start planning anything. The martian soil is toxic and currently we are unable to use it for agriculture. Low solar panel output plus sandstorms mean a lot of upkeep is needed to keep power up - or more realistically you need to deliver a nuclear reactor there. But... rockets do explode, do you want to experience nuclear fuel payload explode in earths atmosphere? People on mars will have to live in underground dwellings to shield them from space radiation. Different gravity in long term might have some unexpected side effects, especially pregnancy. But then whats the point of it all... we are unable to create stable colony (plan b) there. Mining? Moon is closer and easier for that purpose. It all sounds like a penal colony, no sane person will sign up for it.
- matricaria 3y ago
  It’s more surviving than living on Mars. AFAIK a journey to Mars will be a one way ticket.
  - me_me_me 3y ago
    Yes it would be, so what sane person would sign up for it? The chance we would see a person standing on surface of mars is 0%, unless there is some revolutionary scientific/engineering breakthrough or an actual threat to life on earth.
93po 3y ago
decades closer than we'd be waiting for NASA

one_more_q 3y ago

Wait, them trying out if the concrete alone is strong enough to withstand the launch makes you wonder how close we are? I’m wondering about life support, producing fuel in Mars and a lot of other things, but the floor of the launch stand really does not bother me at all. People love to complain about spaceX and this gave them a great reason.

dathinab 3y ago
I mean intentional negligence re-framed in retrospective as a scientific test is always a good reason to complain, and if that wouldn't but a dent on the trust into a company acting responsible then people would have to be quite blind tbh. But yes the floor of the launch pad is really not something to worry about, I mean we know how to build safe launch pads since decades, we just have to do so.
simiones 3y ago
Look at it another way: if they can't even get the launch pad not to catastrophically fail and endanger the facility and all of their permits, why should we trust them to do anything else more complex much better?
- inglor_cz 3y ago
  "why should we trust them to do anything else more complex much better?" Because the same people previously developed Falcon 9 Block V, the safest and most reliable launcher on record?
  - nocoiner 3y ago
    Isn’t Atlas V also 100% successful?
    - inglor_cz 3y ago
      True, but Falcon 9 Block V adds the partial reuse capability; while we can say that each Atlas V flew reliably once, we can say that many Falcon 9 first stages have flown reliably several times.
matricaria 3y ago
Yes it is part of the equation. Probably need to invent better concrete or a new concept first. But even more the way this has been handled, or rather not handled. There is so much that can fail. All in all I doubt it will happen soon. I remember a few years ago, SpaceX was selling seats for the mars mission. But maybe that’s just the Elon-way of doing things.

dathinab 3y ago

more important Even if climate change gets way worse and we contaminate our environment way more then we do now and additionally to all that have some additional nuclear escalations: It still would be WAY easier for humanity to continue to survive on earth then it is to do so on mars. Putting up a few human on a mini base on Mars, that's the _easy_ part. Even keeping that base alive for a few years is very easy compared to making the mars a viable/relevant option for humans future survival, and AFIKT that is still years, maybe decades away.

matricaria 3y ago
This narrative is so stupid, Mars will never be more inhabitable the Earth.

me_me_me 3y ago

Its not about getting there, but coming back (or in the least staying and surviving). And there are so many problems that need solving first before we start planning anything. The martian soil is toxic and currently we are unable to use it for agriculture. Low solar panel output plus sandstorms mean a lot of upkeep is needed to keep power up - or more realistically you need to deliver a nuclear reactor there. But... rockets do explode, do you want to experience nuclear fuel payload explode in earths atmosphere? People on mars will have to live in underground dwellings to shield them from space radiation. Different gravity in long term might have some unexpected side effects, especially pregnancy. But then whats the point of it all... we are unable to create stable colony (plan b) there. Mining? Moon is closer and easier for that purpose. It all sounds like a penal colony, no sane person will sign up for it.

matricaria 3y ago
It’s more surviving than living on Mars. AFAIK a journey to Mars will be a one way ticket.
- me_me_me 3y ago
  Yes it would be, so what sane person would sign up for it? The chance we would see a person standing on surface of mars is 0%, unless there is some revolutionary scientific/engineering breakthrough or an actual threat to life on earth.

93po 3y ago

decades closer than we'd be waiting for NASA