4 ms·
The scale of systems to set up there for humans to stay for weeks is mind-blowing compared to the robots currently there: it's likely not before tens of years.
by gregoriol 3y ago
The scale of systems to set up there for humans to stay for weeks is mind-blowing compared to the robots currently there: it's likely not before tens of years. Even doing so on the moon is years away. Sending robots with more science equipments seems more likely in our lifetime.
Would humans there be more efficient than robots to solve this question? not very likely: humans would need more tools to perform the same research.
- the_duke 3y agoThe next US moon landing will use SpaceX Starship, which is huge and totally oversized for the purpose of getting two or three people on the moon. They could probably easily load up enough supplies and equipment for longer mission durations, depending on fuel requirements and boil off.
- sdenton4 3y agoAssuming it lands right side up, of course...
- lukan 3y ago"The scale of systems to set up there for humans to stay for weeks is mind-blowing" Aren't they basically the same systems, that also sustain them in space? Like on the ISS? So you need to land such a module and have enough fuel, oxygen and supplies? Not saying, that it is easy, but you make it sound like it is a completely different and harder challenge than living in space? The only increased problem I can think of, might be the microdust.
- dmurray 3y agoEnergy is another increased problem. You need a lot more solar panels, and likely batteries, to supply the same energy as you get in lunar orbit. At least one order of magnitude more mass.
- lukan 3y agoThat is a valid point (in space there is always sun), but the Mars day is just 37 minutes longer than on earth, so it is a fixed problem that can be handled with just more needed basic material. Nothing fancy, or complicated though.
- genman 3y agoMars is further away from Sun and gets less energy per square meter than anything near Earth orbit.
- lukan 3y agoYes, though there is way less atmosphere in the way. The result is still half of earth, so not great, but something to work with. (But personally I would go with a nuclear reactor for the main base)
- SideburnsOfDoom 3y ago> Aren't they basically the same systems, that also sustain them in space? Like on the ISS? Distance Earth to ISS: 250 miles. Distance Earth to mars: about 140 million miles It's like camping in your own back yard vs. camping 2000 miles away from home. But sure, otherwise it's basically the same.
- lukan 3y agoYes it is. You "just" need more backup systems as indeed, you cannot just come inside to get what you forgot, or replace what just broke or go sleep inside, if it turns out too cold outside. That is for sure and that is why I would start with the moon. To test more all of the equipment. And then test a little more. And then do some more testing.
- gregoriol 3y agoLanding is also way harder than docking in orbit
- lukan 3y agoBut once you landed, gravity is something nice.
- SideburnsOfDoom 3y agoMars gravity is about 38% of Earth gravity. Just how "nice" this is to human health in the long term, is still unknown. And if your health isn't coping with it, the quickest way back to Earth likely involves 6 months of zero-g.
- lukan 3y agoSure - but this was about the difficulties of a habitat on mars vs habitat in space. And for some reason, there were many, one can allmost say fanatics, who volunteered for the scam called Mars One, taking a one way ticket with the knowledge that they would die, if something goes wrong.