3 ms·

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Starship_flight_tests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Starship_flight_tests So we have a vessel capable of ferrying

by feoren 3y ago

> https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Starship_flight_tests https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/SpaceX_Starship_flight_tests So we have a vessel capable of ferrying 100 tons to Mars that's already had 55 seconds of controlled flight from a launch where it was missing 3 engines, developed by a single non-government company. And this is supposed to make me pessimistic about a concerted effort from the United States government being able to make this thing (or something like it) work in the next ten years? > But we aren't talking about LEO deployment here. We are talking about a flight to Mars. I was using the payload-to-Mars number, about 100 tons. That does require refueling in orbit. That's expensive, but a pretty simple orbital rendezvous, which we've been doing since 1965. > And we won't be deploying that paylod in space, we have to land it Parachutes, aerobraking, skycranes ... these are well-solved problems on Mars. You think we've already hit the limit of mass that's possible to land on Mars? > Then please show me the robotic infrastructure that is capable, with no pre-existing support structures, of building a sealed habitat, after self-unloading from a landed spaceship Let's revisit the original point being made: > Pretty sure we could design and launch a digging robot in 10 years, I dont really buy that as the bottleneck to mars exploration An extra ~14 tons (half of which we need anyway) and a couple of months of digging is pretty clearly not the bottleneck. But to actually address your point: the robots don't need to make it move-in-ready, they just need to set up enough that the arriving humans can do it relatively quickly (days). If humans have to IKEA-assemble things and weld* some stuff, that's fine. (*yes, harder on Mars, but possible). Since the spaceship itself will have to be a livable habitat, obviously the hope would be to re-use most of that. We send pre-emptive missions to set things up (dig holes, set up solar panels, gather basic resources), and another manned mission to finalize the hab. Bonus points if we can just scooch the ship into the cave after it lands as the initial hab. I think we're just deeply divided on what we think ten thousand focused engineers with hundreds of billions of dollars in budget can accomplish in 10 years. Remember, we're talking about a national or international focused initiative here.

usrbinbash 3y ago
> that's already had 55 seconds of controlled flight Good. And once it makes the trip to Mars and lands successfully, with 100t of payload, then I will accept it as an argument. > Parachutes, aerobraking, skycranes We are not talking about a 1025 kg science vehicle here, we are talking about 100t of cargo, that has to land in the same place, preferably intact. Good luck making a parachute that carries that weight in a 610 pascal atmosphere. And latest the colonists will have to land a ship there, or they are stuck. So no, without ships being able to land on Mars, intact, Mars Colony is not happening. And btw. since you mentioned Spaceship: I'm pretty sure landing the thing on mars and letting it take off from there, is what it says on their own website: https://www.spacex.com/human-spaceflight/mars/ https://www.spacex.com/human-spaceflight/mars/ (scroll down to the "TO MARS AND BACK" diagram) > they just need to set up enough that the arriving humans can do it relatively quickly (days). > We send pre-emptive missions to set things up (dig holes, set up solar panels, gather basic resources) Good, then show me that the robots can do that, under the conditions pointed out above. > I think we're just deeply divided on what we think ten thousand focused engineers with hundreds of billions of dollars in budget can accomplish in 10 years. No I don't think we are. I am well aware that nothing about a Mars colony is physically impossible, or outside the reach of contemporary human technology, if we really want to do it. I think it would take somewhat longer than 10 years, given the technological difficulties, but I don't think it is impossible. The thing where I think we disagree is, given all the problems I pointed out, whether or not it is worth it jumping through all those hoops just for...yeah, for what? For science? We have robots doing that on Mars, and they don't require habitats, or food, or water. Resources? Mars doesn't have any Earth doesn't already have in abundance. Land? The entire planet is an airless, freeze dried, irradiated, toxic wasteland. As a backup plan? Even after a thermonuclear war, Earth would still be more inhabitable than Mars. Wanna invest the time and effort of 10000 engineers and hundreds of billions of dollars working in international cooperation into space programs? Fine by me! Here are a few suggestions: - The DART test was a huge success, we should develop that, because defending earth from asteroids could come in handy at some point - A moon base sounds awesome. btw. the Moon might actually have a valuable resource we don't easily get on Earth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3#Moon - Please build more deep space telescopes - ISS is getting old - There is lots of garbage in LEO that we need a solution for - Eventually we will need much better propulsion systems All of these activities sound way better to me, than wasting resources trying to set up shop on a worthless ball of dust for no good reason.
- feoren 3y ago
  I actually think we've basically reached agreement. All your dashed items are higher on my priority list as well, and much more. I want to see Mars terraformed in the next few hundred years, which starts with learning how to terraform Earth (a rather immediate need, in fact!). Sending humans to live on Mars makes terraforming it harder, not easier, since now we can't just chuck ice comets at it without endangering lives. I still firmly believe that we could set up human habitats in 10 years, but I totally agree that we should not. >> We send pre-emptive missions to set things up (dig holes, set up solar panels, gather basic resources) > Good, then show me that the robots can do that, under the conditions pointed out above. For your consideration (I have no idea on the merits of this company, but I see it on this site every once in a while): https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/charge-robotics https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/charge-robotics
  - usrbinbash 3y ago
    > I actually think we've basically reached agreement. Yes, I do think so too, and thanks for the discussion, I enjoyed it alot! > I want to see Mars terraformed in the next few hundred years I think it will be a few centuries until we have the technology to do that, and then carrying out the task will probably take further centuries, but I do think it is a worthwhile goal to work towards. However, if I were looking for a first terraforming target, I would recommend Venus instead. Reasons being, the planets gravity (which we cannot do anything about barring some serious SciFi-esque breakthroughts in physics) is much closer to Earths (~0.9g), energy may be easier to come by due to it's proximity to the sun, and while its magnetic field is weak, it is still stronger than that on Mars. > which starts with learning how to terraform Earth Luckily, that is surprisingly easy. The biosphere is self regulating, so if Humanity manages to pull itself together and stop actively ruining it, it can undo the damage caused so far. Nature will do so anyway, eventually, the question our species has to answer is if we still want to exist by that point or not.
- maxlin 3y ago
  > Good. And once it makes the trip to Mars and lands successfully, with 100t of payload, then I will accept it as an argument. This guy is trolling. Think if Kennedy said the same about funding the Apollo program only after computers were 50 times smaller and we had solved the F1 vibration problems, among the thousand other ones. Blinded by wanting to feel right in an argument to the point of proving themselves wrong. It's a bit dark to be on the hopeless side doing that though. Even if it proves hope absolutely prevails here.

by feoren 3y ago

usrbinbash 3y ago

> that's already had 55 seconds of controlled flight Good. And once it makes the trip to Mars and lands successfully, with 100t of payload, then I will accept it as an argument. > Parachutes, aerobraking, skycranes We are not talking about a 1025 kg science vehicle here, we are talking about 100t of cargo, that has to land in the same place, preferably intact. Good luck making a parachute that carries that weight in a 610 pascal atmosphere. And latest the colonists will have to land a ship there, or they are stuck. So no, without ships being able to land on Mars, intact, Mars Colony is not happening. And btw. since you mentioned Spaceship: I'm pretty sure landing the thing on mars and letting it take off from there, is what it says on their own website: https://www.spacex.com/human-spaceflight/mars/ https://www.spacex.com/human-spaceflight/mars/ (scroll down to the "TO MARS AND BACK" diagram) > they just need to set up enough that the arriving humans can do it relatively quickly (days). > We send pre-emptive missions to set things up (dig holes, set up solar panels, gather basic resources) Good, then show me that the robots can do that, under the conditions pointed out above. > I think we're just deeply divided on what we think ten thousand focused engineers with hundreds of billions of dollars in budget can accomplish in 10 years. No I don't think we are. I am well aware that nothing about a Mars colony is physically impossible, or outside the reach of contemporary human technology, if we really want to do it. I think it would take somewhat longer than 10 years, given the technological difficulties, but I don't think it is impossible. The thing where I think we disagree is, given all the problems I pointed out, whether or not it is worth it jumping through all those hoops just for...yeah, for what? For science? We have robots doing that on Mars, and they don't require habitats, or food, or water. Resources? Mars doesn't have any Earth doesn't already have in abundance. Land? The entire planet is an airless, freeze dried, irradiated, toxic wasteland. As a backup plan? Even after a thermonuclear war, Earth would still be more inhabitable than Mars. Wanna invest the time and effort of 10000 engineers and hundreds of billions of dollars working in international cooperation into space programs? Fine by me! Here are a few suggestions: - The DART test was a huge success, we should develop that, because defending earth from asteroids could come in handy at some point - A moon base sounds awesome. btw. the Moon might actually have a valuable resource we don't easily get on Earth: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Helium-3#Moon - Please build more deep space telescopes - ISS is getting old - There is lots of garbage in LEO that we need a solution for - Eventually we will need much better propulsion systems All of these activities sound way better to me, than wasting resources trying to set up shop on a worthless ball of dust for no good reason.

feoren 3y ago
I actually think we've basically reached agreement. All your dashed items are higher on my priority list as well, and much more. I want to see Mars terraformed in the next few hundred years, which starts with learning how to terraform Earth (a rather immediate need, in fact!). Sending humans to live on Mars makes terraforming it harder, not easier, since now we can't just chuck ice comets at it without endangering lives. I still firmly believe that we could set up human habitats in 10 years, but I totally agree that we should not. >> We send pre-emptive missions to set things up (dig holes, set up solar panels, gather basic resources) > Good, then show me that the robots can do that, under the conditions pointed out above. For your consideration (I have no idea on the merits of this company, but I see it on this site every once in a while): https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/charge-robotics https://www.ycombinator.com/companies/charge-robotics
- usrbinbash 3y ago
  > I actually think we've basically reached agreement. Yes, I do think so too, and thanks for the discussion, I enjoyed it alot! > I want to see Mars terraformed in the next few hundred years I think it will be a few centuries until we have the technology to do that, and then carrying out the task will probably take further centuries, but I do think it is a worthwhile goal to work towards. However, if I were looking for a first terraforming target, I would recommend Venus instead. Reasons being, the planets gravity (which we cannot do anything about barring some serious SciFi-esque breakthroughts in physics) is much closer to Earths (~0.9g), energy may be easier to come by due to it's proximity to the sun, and while its magnetic field is weak, it is still stronger than that on Mars. > which starts with learning how to terraform Earth Luckily, that is surprisingly easy. The biosphere is self regulating, so if Humanity manages to pull itself together and stop actively ruining it, it can undo the damage caused so far. Nature will do so anyway, eventually, the question our species has to answer is if we still want to exist by that point or not.
maxlin 3y ago
> Good. And once it makes the trip to Mars and lands successfully, with 100t of payload, then I will accept it as an argument. This guy is trolling. Think if Kennedy said the same about funding the Apollo program only after computers were 50 times smaller and we had solved the F1 vibration problems, among the thousand other ones. Blinded by wanting to feel right in an argument to the point of proving themselves wrong. It's a bit dark to be on the hopeless side doing that though. Even if it proves hope absolutely prevails here.