8 ms·

I really doubt that humanity will make trip to earth from mars in the next 50 years. It already takes a huge amount of fuel to land on Mars -- its not economica

by Fred34 3y ago

I really doubt that humanity will make trip to earth from mars in the next 50 years. It already takes a huge amount of fuel to land on Mars -- its not economical to launch enough fuel for a return trip (even if some of the fuel could stay in orbit like with the moon landings). Much better idea to find the few people that are fine living and dying on mars. Humanity has not returned a single sample from mars even though we've been landing spacecraft on mars for 50 years.

cryptoz 3y ago
What’s missing from your calculation is the current Mars plans from SpaceX or others. They plan on building a colony of millions of people. In order to do that, costs must be dramatically lower and return trips must be possible. So all the current Mars-capable rockets are being developed with the idea that there will be return trips every synod. Maybe those ideas will fail. But there are billions of dollars going toward this goal today, and more in the future. So I would bet very much that a return trip is likely within a decade.
- Fred34 3y ago
  Within the decade? I wish I was that optimistic. There are only so many windows in the next decade where it's economical to send/receive rockets to mars. The planets have to literally align for it can be economical to send/receive people. https://earthsky.org/astronomy-essentials/close-and-far-martian-oppositions/ https://earthsky.org/astronomy-essentials/close-and-far-mart...
  - ben_w 3y ago
    I'd say 50/50 on the launch (but not landing on Mars let alone returning to Earth) of a manned Mars mission this decade; Musk is famously over-optimistic, but his companies do tend to actually arrive at the destination.
    - Fred34 3y ago
      Yea that sounds about right.
- eru 3y ago
  Things always take longer than expected. So I would bet that a return trip is possible within 50 years, but won't actually be done within 10 years from now.
- fmobus 3y ago
  A 7-digit colony is a very distant thing, despite of Musk's nutty ideas. Guy can barely get his car things or his HLS things right, not sure why people trust him to lead on Mars colonization. His plans are not serious. At current levels of technology and investment, colonization won't happen in our lifetimes. I'd wager we'll get, at best, a few very very dangerous and expensive crewed missions and some very basic infrastructure.
  - inglor_cz 3y ago
    "not sure why people trust him to lead on Mars colonization" Uh, because SpaceX is a serious success? The last year, they launched 10 times as much payload into space than China.
    - kelnos 3y ago
      Not to minimize what SpaceX has done, but building reusable, reliable, relatively-inexpensive rockets is a far cry from building a sustainable colony on another planet. Musk may be able to eventually manage the latter, but I don't think success at the former is a reliable indicator of that.
      - inglor_cz 3y ago
        Reliable would be a strong word, but SpaceX has certainly demonstrated its ability to innovate and reduce expenses at the same time, which is a necessary condition to even entertain the idea of interplanetary flights. They also seem to be fairly concentrated on development of new vehicles and don't distract themselves with anything else.
      - ben_w 3y ago
        I also don't expect Musk to be able to build a sustainable colony on another planet, what I do expect is for him to be able to build the transport infrastructure that enables someone else to be able to build it[0]. And even then, most likely with a layer of indirection that puts Starship in the role of space truck which enables the infrastructure be built, but which isn't the main mode of transport itself: To really make a Mars colony viable, I think both Earth and Mars (for different reasons) would probably want a non-rocket launch system such as an orbital ring, which Starship could help build. [0] assuming the von Neumann replicators don't eat us all first. He is literally building a bunch of general purpose humanoid robots and suggesting they may take on factory roles… and Tesla/Optimus isn't the only such robot under development.
- runlaszlorun 3y ago
  Call me a cynic but I have zero trust for a man who becomes the wealthiest on the planet and, rather than have a little gratitude and actual try to give back, is then consumed by getting the f out of here before the crowd with pitchforks arrive. And, no, personally I don’t think Tesla or SpaceX count as giving back. Why can’t our billionaires at least just slink off to the lovely beaches of some island somewhere. Oh wait, egos… But Mars? Mars? How does that sound enjoyable? I actually hope he makes it there. And millions of people? I’m no expert but are there even anywhere near enough launch windows for that? And I’m guessing even just figuring out the cost of the fuel to reach escape velocity would show how this a non-starter for more than Musk himself and a few companions.
  - krisoft 3y ago
    > I have zero trust for a man who becomes the wealthiest on the planet and, rather than have a little gratitude and actual try to give back, is then consumed by getting the f out of here But that is not actually the order things happened. He was talking about mars colonies before he become the wealthiest on the planet. > Mars? Mars? How does that sound enjoyable? Nobody said they want to do it because it is enjoyable. Where are you getting this? > millions of people? I’m no expert but are there even anywhere near enough launch windows for that? In what way do you think the number of launch windows constrain the number of colonist? > I’m guessing even just figuring out the cost of the fuel to reach escape velocity would show how this a non-starter You are guessing? :)
  - mulmen 3y ago
    > And, no, personally I don’t think Tesla or SpaceX count as giving back. Yeah, well, that’s just, like, your opinion, man. Say what you will about the tenets of Muskianism but at least it’s an ethos. > Why can’t our billionaires at least just slink off to the lovely beaches of some island somewhere. Oh wait, egos… One person’s egotism is another’s genuine belief. I’m personally not surprised someone who had the ambition and luck to be a billionaire would continue doing things they believe in. I’m not even convinced it would be beneficial for them to disappear. What happens to the immense amount of capital they control? > But Mars? Mars? How does that sound enjoyable? I actually hope he makes it there. Does he actually want to go to Mars personally? I thought the idea was that he wants humanity to be multi-planetary.
- ffgjgf1 3y ago
  > They plan on building a colony of millions of people Right. Sounds cool, maybe they could commission someone to make a scifi tv show but that’s about it. Why would you want millions of people on Mars? What purpose that would achieve? There is no way this colony could be self sustainable… (also good luck raising the inconceivable high amount of money required to get them there in the first place) It would literally be the most wasteful and poi thing humans have accomplished (on purpose at least) ever.
  - ben_w 3y ago
    "Why?" is given as a backup against a global catastrophe on earth. Myself I doubt this, there's very few which would affect all of and only Earth. Gamma ray burst? Also Mars. Paperclip optimiser? Probably also Mars. Pandemic? If you're moving stuff between planets, probably also Mars. Nuclear war and climate change combined won't leave this planet anything like as uninhabitable as Mars, though of course the converse is that the capacity to colonise Mars means the middle of the Sahara, the middle of Antarctica, all superfund cleanup sites, and the top of Mount Everest, all become easy to turn into friendly and pleasant cities you'd be happy to live in.
    - detourdog 3y ago
      I hear this and understand the human need to think this is logical. I don't see this as a reasonably back-up plan. The chances of a catastrophe on Mars is even greater considering the environment is not fit for humans. The amount of ingenuity and co-operation needed to go to Mars may be greater than the amount needed to maintain Earth. I don't see on Mars is safer than just an orbiting space station. Needing to go to Mars or anywhere other than Earth adds complexity to the issue.
      - ben_w 3y ago
        Getting a million people to Mars, assuming Musk's price optimism is accurate, is somewhere around 10% of the upgrade costs Earth's electricity grids already need, or about half the material (not land, not planning, not political) cost of building a new circumglobal 1Ω TW-scale power grid from aluminium. I would (if I had a say in the matter) go for the Moon over Mars or an orbital space station. An orbital space station (or collection of them) for a million people would be very hard, because we don't have a convenient small asteroid to mine for building materials and therefore can't ISRU. I'd pick the Moon because it's close enough that when the inevitable black swan catastrophe happens, it's only a few days travel so we'd have a chance of saving almost everyone's lives if all the water or food was lost to depressurisation/the outside environment/surprise mould. Mars, to rephrase what I wrote before, is less hospitable than all the worst environmental disasters we can experience on Earth, even if those disasters were combined. Being able to colonise it means we can fix basically anything that goes wrong here.
nickff 3y ago
Are you familiar with Mars Direct? I don’t think any current plans to go to Mars envision bringing all their return fuel with them to Mars orbit (much less to the surface).
- Fred34 3y ago
  I haven't heard of Mars Direct, but from reading the link you gave me it sounds like a plan to start automated fuel production plants on mars to make fuel for trips back to earth. It requires the transportation of a small nuclear power-plant to mars as well as hydrogen to synthesize methane from the carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere. Off the bat I would say that hydrogen would be a pain to transport to mars (hydrogen has a high energy density by weight but not by volume) but don't know much else to think about the project.
  - oroup 3y ago
    More recent versions of the plan contemplate electrolyzing water in the ground to obtain the required oxygen
    - Fred34 3y ago
      Electrolyzing water would also give hydrogen which would make the transpiration of materials easier. I’m guessing that it would require a large amount of electricity to get enough hydrogen/oxygen from the water (they really would need a miniature nuclear reactor). Edit: for my last comment (which I can’t edit now) I meant to say that hydrogen has a high energy content by mass but not by volume. So 1kg of the stuff has a huge amount of energy but also takes up a lot of physical space.
- Animats 3y ago
  NASA and DARPA have been funding studies for a new generation of fission-powered rockets.[1][2] They talk about launching a demo in 2027. BWXT (good old Babcock and Wilcox, makers of hundreds of submarine nuclear power plants) and Lockheed-Martin are the primary contractors.[3] But the big bucks are still going into the Senate Launch System. [1] https://www.nasa.gov/tdm/space-nuclear-propulsion/ https://www.nasa.gov/tdm/space-nuclear-propulsion/ [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNnsnyIvzps https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNnsnyIvzps [3] https://www.bwxt.com/what-we-do/advanced-technologies/space-nuclear-propulsion https://www.bwxt.com/what-we-do/advanced-technologies/space-...
dotnet00 3y ago
It's only not economical with our current mostly disposable rockets and lack of experience with ISRU and long term management and transfer of cryogenic fuels in space. Luckily we're working towards gaining experience on all those fronts. While generating sufficient Methane is probably too big of an ask without involving extensive infrastructure, in methalox rockets (which many next gen rockets are), the larger mass is the LOX (iirc ~75% of propellant mass on Starship is LOX), which is a lot easier to devise automated methods for ISRU. Thus the problem becomes a lot more solvable. You send ahead a system to collect and store LOX, then you bring enough Methane for the return trip, and you also spend the 2 years till the return window collecting LOX. Although, if you're sending stuff ahead of time and have the expected economics of Starship (ie down from hundreds of millions per ton to the Martian surface to millions per ton), you really can afford to just send ahead enough propellants for at least a round trip.
- Fred34 3y ago
  I haven't kept track much on how feasible the Starship rocket is. Maybe it's not that hard to make fuel on mars. Maybe humanity is making good progress figuring out how to transfer fuel in space. You sound much more educated than me on the advancements being made. I still think it would way more feasible to just to find 5-6 guys in the 25-30 year range to send on a one-way expedition. Instead of spending all of their time maintaining a factory making fuel these guys could be spending time exploring the planet and doing experiments. In return humanity would memorialize them and try to send them stuff to stay alive. After a few years we would try to send another crew to join the first crew to make more progress on the planet and build from there.
  - b112 3y ago
    "Prisoners of conscience" perhaps? Some people are accused and convicted of a crime, know they are at fault, and even want to be sentenced for their crime. EG, they knew they were negligent, made a mistake they should not have, etc. Such types could potentially feel almost relief with such exile, if their personalities aligned with that of an explorer. And if they truly desire censure, punishment, "doing their time" on Mars, instead of rotting in a jail cell, may seem very good to them. Of course, lots of profiling would need to be done -- but, that is already done for such missions.
ffgjgf1 3y ago
> Much better idea to find the few people that are fine living and dying on mars What would be the point, though? Besides live streaming someone slowly dying from radiation poisoning? It’s not like a human can really do anything that a sufficiently complex robot wouldn’t be able to. Also I always assumed that the whole point of going there (or to the moon for that matter) was to show that we can successfully get humans there and back rather than anything else.
- Fred34 3y ago
  That’s fair enough. If the goal itself was to get people there and back for the technical challenge/knowledge then a one-way mission does not make much sense. But if the point was to start a long-term colony on mars then it would make sense to first send people that would not expect to come back. Robots are cool, but I’m guessing that us humans with our arms and fingers will be able to do general tasks better than robots will for a long while. Humans have ability to fix things, reach things, and to improvise which robots generally lack. Construction or factories on mars will require people on the ground managing those projects. There would also be a scientific benefit understanding how people age and how long-term social relations can last on mars.
  - mulmen 3y ago
    > There would also be a scientific benefit understanding how people age and how long-term social relations can last on mars. This is an area of research that has been explored extensively around earth already. In anticipation of the “real thing”.
    - pavlov 3y ago
      Also, the psychology of spending hundreds of billions to build a colony that becomes a tomb is probably too creepy for politicians and voters to contemplate. Many cultures have a concept of sanctity of the grave, or right of sepulchre. From that point of view, what happens to the Mars habitat where those people died? Does it become a mausoleum forever? Anything else seems very fraught. It would be a bizarre spectacle to send another trillion-dollar crew whose first task is to clear out the corpses...
lukan 3y ago
"Much better idea to find the few people that are fine living and dying on mars" A few? Over 200 000 payed a scammy company money, to maybe be considered a one way mars colonist. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_One https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_One This year was supposed to be the year they finally go, but surprisingly it did not work out somehow, maybe because the company only knew how to do good looking 3D models and no real hardware. But they did make the proof, that there is no shortage of willing people to make a one way trip. And in general I am more optimistic, I am pretty sure there will be humans on Mars in the next 50 years. I am not a fan of the guy in general, but I do believe Elon Musk is serious about going there and I can imagine him still dreaming of being the first on Mars (and then build his kingdom there). And the chinese might start a new space race. Then there is India, Brazil, .. lots of ambitions and national pride and egos. Or crowdfunding goes really mainstream and we organize a pure scientific mars mission at some point? 50 years are a long time and the rate of change right is crazy. It does not have to go all in a bad direction. In either way, rocket starts became something very normal. At some point it is just about doing enough of then, for the fuel and supplies. And we can do that. Also robots have come far, who can be send ahead.
steveBK123 3y ago
We will.. in the metaverse, interacting with LLM chatbot alien avatars!
bookofjoe 3y ago
"I'd like to die on Mars, just not on impact." Elon Musk, in his 2013 keynote address at SXSW
- BobaFloutist 3y ago
  Finally, something we can all agree on, fans and haters alike!
nojvek 3y ago
I agree with you. The bigger question in my mind is that in 50 years, will we need to even land humans on mars, or will be able to build space-faring robots where we can upload our consciousness and send that instead. Humans, or generally all complex life on this planet is well ... adapted to this planet. Space is very hostile to us. There's a reason why Mars has had six rovers, with opportunity working for 15 years. Distance to Moon (384,400km) is 0.0017 of that to Mars (225,000,000,000km). Humans have spent barely a few days moonwalking.
krystianantoni 3y ago
To me the whole concept of this exploration is to first find good base building and fuel materials while lowering the cost of travel. Once that happens it will be very quick paced race to those materials. Like in any other business venture this mars/interstellar is a bet, so doubts of success are natural.

by Fred34 3y ago

cryptoz 3y ago

What’s missing from your calculation is the current Mars plans from SpaceX or others. They plan on building a colony of millions of people. In order to do that, costs must be dramatically lower and return trips must be possible. So all the current Mars-capable rockets are being developed with the idea that there will be return trips every synod. Maybe those ideas will fail. But there are billions of dollars going toward this goal today, and more in the future. So I would bet very much that a return trip is likely within a decade.

Fred34 3y ago
Within the decade? I wish I was that optimistic. There are only so many windows in the next decade where it's economical to send/receive rockets to mars. The planets have to literally align for it can be economical to send/receive people. https://earthsky.org/astronomy-essentials/close-and-far-martian-oppositions/ https://earthsky.org/astronomy-essentials/close-and-far-mart...
- ben_w 3y ago
  I'd say 50/50 on the launch (but not landing on Mars let alone returning to Earth) of a manned Mars mission this decade; Musk is famously over-optimistic, but his companies do tend to actually arrive at the destination.
  - Fred34 3y ago
    Yea that sounds about right.
eru 3y ago
Things always take longer than expected. So I would bet that a return trip is possible within 50 years, but won't actually be done within 10 years from now.
fmobus 3y ago
A 7-digit colony is a very distant thing, despite of Musk's nutty ideas. Guy can barely get his car things or his HLS things right, not sure why people trust him to lead on Mars colonization. His plans are not serious. At current levels of technology and investment, colonization won't happen in our lifetimes. I'd wager we'll get, at best, a few very very dangerous and expensive crewed missions and some very basic infrastructure.
- inglor_cz 3y ago
  "not sure why people trust him to lead on Mars colonization" Uh, because SpaceX is a serious success? The last year, they launched 10 times as much payload into space than China.
  - kelnos 3y ago
    Not to minimize what SpaceX has done, but building reusable, reliable, relatively-inexpensive rockets is a far cry from building a sustainable colony on another planet. Musk may be able to eventually manage the latter, but I don't think success at the former is a reliable indicator of that.
    - inglor_cz 3y ago
      Reliable would be a strong word, but SpaceX has certainly demonstrated its ability to innovate and reduce expenses at the same time, which is a necessary condition to even entertain the idea of interplanetary flights. They also seem to be fairly concentrated on development of new vehicles and don't distract themselves with anything else.
    - ben_w 3y ago
      I also don't expect Musk to be able to build a sustainable colony on another planet, what I do expect is for him to be able to build the transport infrastructure that enables someone else to be able to build it[0]. And even then, most likely with a layer of indirection that puts Starship in the role of space truck which enables the infrastructure be built, but which isn't the main mode of transport itself: To really make a Mars colony viable, I think both Earth and Mars (for different reasons) would probably want a non-rocket launch system such as an orbital ring, which Starship could help build. [0] assuming the von Neumann replicators don't eat us all first. He is literally building a bunch of general purpose humanoid robots and suggesting they may take on factory roles… and Tesla/Optimus isn't the only such robot under development.
runlaszlorun 3y ago
Call me a cynic but I have zero trust for a man who becomes the wealthiest on the planet and, rather than have a little gratitude and actual try to give back, is then consumed by getting the f out of here before the crowd with pitchforks arrive. And, no, personally I don’t think Tesla or SpaceX count as giving back. Why can’t our billionaires at least just slink off to the lovely beaches of some island somewhere. Oh wait, egos… But Mars? Mars? How does that sound enjoyable? I actually hope he makes it there. And millions of people? I’m no expert but are there even anywhere near enough launch windows for that? And I’m guessing even just figuring out the cost of the fuel to reach escape velocity would show how this a non-starter for more than Musk himself and a few companions.
- krisoft 3y ago
  > I have zero trust for a man who becomes the wealthiest on the planet and, rather than have a little gratitude and actual try to give back, is then consumed by getting the f out of here But that is not actually the order things happened. He was talking about mars colonies before he become the wealthiest on the planet. > Mars? Mars? How does that sound enjoyable? Nobody said they want to do it because it is enjoyable. Where are you getting this? > millions of people? I’m no expert but are there even anywhere near enough launch windows for that? In what way do you think the number of launch windows constrain the number of colonist? > I’m guessing even just figuring out the cost of the fuel to reach escape velocity would show how this a non-starter You are guessing? :)
- mulmen 3y ago
  > And, no, personally I don’t think Tesla or SpaceX count as giving back. Yeah, well, that’s just, like, your opinion, man. Say what you will about the tenets of Muskianism but at least it’s an ethos. > Why can’t our billionaires at least just slink off to the lovely beaches of some island somewhere. Oh wait, egos… One person’s egotism is another’s genuine belief. I’m personally not surprised someone who had the ambition and luck to be a billionaire would continue doing things they believe in. I’m not even convinced it would be beneficial for them to disappear. What happens to the immense amount of capital they control? > But Mars? Mars? How does that sound enjoyable? I actually hope he makes it there. Does he actually want to go to Mars personally? I thought the idea was that he wants humanity to be multi-planetary.
ffgjgf1 3y ago
> They plan on building a colony of millions of people Right. Sounds cool, maybe they could commission someone to make a scifi tv show but that’s about it. Why would you want millions of people on Mars? What purpose that would achieve? There is no way this colony could be self sustainable… (also good luck raising the inconceivable high amount of money required to get them there in the first place) It would literally be the most wasteful and poi thing humans have accomplished (on purpose at least) ever.
- ben_w 3y ago
  "Why?" is given as a backup against a global catastrophe on earth. Myself I doubt this, there's very few which would affect all of and only Earth. Gamma ray burst? Also Mars. Paperclip optimiser? Probably also Mars. Pandemic? If you're moving stuff between planets, probably also Mars. Nuclear war and climate change combined won't leave this planet anything like as uninhabitable as Mars, though of course the converse is that the capacity to colonise Mars means the middle of the Sahara, the middle of Antarctica, all superfund cleanup sites, and the top of Mount Everest, all become easy to turn into friendly and pleasant cities you'd be happy to live in.
  - detourdog 3y ago
    I hear this and understand the human need to think this is logical. I don't see this as a reasonably back-up plan. The chances of a catastrophe on Mars is even greater considering the environment is not fit for humans. The amount of ingenuity and co-operation needed to go to Mars may be greater than the amount needed to maintain Earth. I don't see on Mars is safer than just an orbiting space station. Needing to go to Mars or anywhere other than Earth adds complexity to the issue.
    - ben_w 3y ago
      Getting a million people to Mars, assuming Musk's price optimism is accurate, is somewhere around 10% of the upgrade costs Earth's electricity grids already need, or about half the material (not land, not planning, not political) cost of building a new circumglobal 1Ω TW-scale power grid from aluminium. I would (if I had a say in the matter) go for the Moon over Mars or an orbital space station. An orbital space station (or collection of them) for a million people would be very hard, because we don't have a convenient small asteroid to mine for building materials and therefore can't ISRU. I'd pick the Moon because it's close enough that when the inevitable black swan catastrophe happens, it's only a few days travel so we'd have a chance of saving almost everyone's lives if all the water or food was lost to depressurisation/the outside environment/surprise mould. Mars, to rephrase what I wrote before, is less hospitable than all the worst environmental disasters we can experience on Earth, even if those disasters were combined. Being able to colonise it means we can fix basically anything that goes wrong here.

nickff 3y ago

Are you familiar with Mars Direct? I don’t think any current plans to go to Mars envision bringing all their return fuel with them to Mars orbit (much less to the surface).

Fred34 3y ago
I haven't heard of Mars Direct, but from reading the link you gave me it sounds like a plan to start automated fuel production plants on mars to make fuel for trips back to earth. It requires the transportation of a small nuclear power-plant to mars as well as hydrogen to synthesize methane from the carbon dioxide already in the atmosphere. Off the bat I would say that hydrogen would be a pain to transport to mars (hydrogen has a high energy density by weight but not by volume) but don't know much else to think about the project.
- oroup 3y ago
  More recent versions of the plan contemplate electrolyzing water in the ground to obtain the required oxygen
  - Fred34 3y ago
    Electrolyzing water would also give hydrogen which would make the transpiration of materials easier. I’m guessing that it would require a large amount of electricity to get enough hydrogen/oxygen from the water (they really would need a miniature nuclear reactor). Edit: for my last comment (which I can’t edit now) I meant to say that hydrogen has a high energy content by mass but not by volume. So 1kg of the stuff has a huge amount of energy but also takes up a lot of physical space.
Animats 3y ago
NASA and DARPA have been funding studies for a new generation of fission-powered rockets.[1][2] They talk about launching a demo in 2027. BWXT (good old Babcock and Wilcox, makers of hundreds of submarine nuclear power plants) and Lockheed-Martin are the primary contractors.[3] But the big bucks are still going into the Senate Launch System. [1] https://www.nasa.gov/tdm/space-nuclear-propulsion/ https://www.nasa.gov/tdm/space-nuclear-propulsion/ [2] https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNnsnyIvzps https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nNnsnyIvzps [3] https://www.bwxt.com/what-we-do/advanced-technologies/space-nuclear-propulsion https://www.bwxt.com/what-we-do/advanced-technologies/space-...

dotnet00 3y ago

It's only not economical with our current mostly disposable rockets and lack of experience with ISRU and long term management and transfer of cryogenic fuels in space. Luckily we're working towards gaining experience on all those fronts. While generating sufficient Methane is probably too big of an ask without involving extensive infrastructure, in methalox rockets (which many next gen rockets are), the larger mass is the LOX (iirc ~75% of propellant mass on Starship is LOX), which is a lot easier to devise automated methods for ISRU. Thus the problem becomes a lot more solvable. You send ahead a system to collect and store LOX, then you bring enough Methane for the return trip, and you also spend the 2 years till the return window collecting LOX. Although, if you're sending stuff ahead of time and have the expected economics of Starship (ie down from hundreds of millions per ton to the Martian surface to millions per ton), you really can afford to just send ahead enough propellants for at least a round trip.

Fred34 3y ago
I haven't kept track much on how feasible the Starship rocket is. Maybe it's not that hard to make fuel on mars. Maybe humanity is making good progress figuring out how to transfer fuel in space. You sound much more educated than me on the advancements being made. I still think it would way more feasible to just to find 5-6 guys in the 25-30 year range to send on a one-way expedition. Instead of spending all of their time maintaining a factory making fuel these guys could be spending time exploring the planet and doing experiments. In return humanity would memorialize them and try to send them stuff to stay alive. After a few years we would try to send another crew to join the first crew to make more progress on the planet and build from there.
- b112 3y ago
  "Prisoners of conscience" perhaps? Some people are accused and convicted of a crime, know they are at fault, and even want to be sentenced for their crime. EG, they knew they were negligent, made a mistake they should not have, etc. Such types could potentially feel almost relief with such exile, if their personalities aligned with that of an explorer. And if they truly desire censure, punishment, "doing their time" on Mars, instead of rotting in a jail cell, may seem very good to them. Of course, lots of profiling would need to be done -- but, that is already done for such missions.

ffgjgf1 3y ago

> Much better idea to find the few people that are fine living and dying on mars What would be the point, though? Besides live streaming someone slowly dying from radiation poisoning? It’s not like a human can really do anything that a sufficiently complex robot wouldn’t be able to. Also I always assumed that the whole point of going there (or to the moon for that matter) was to show that we can successfully get humans there and back rather than anything else.

Fred34 3y ago
That’s fair enough. If the goal itself was to get people there and back for the technical challenge/knowledge then a one-way mission does not make much sense. But if the point was to start a long-term colony on mars then it would make sense to first send people that would not expect to come back. Robots are cool, but I’m guessing that us humans with our arms and fingers will be able to do general tasks better than robots will for a long while. Humans have ability to fix things, reach things, and to improvise which robots generally lack. Construction or factories on mars will require people on the ground managing those projects. There would also be a scientific benefit understanding how people age and how long-term social relations can last on mars.
- mulmen 3y ago
  > There would also be a scientific benefit understanding how people age and how long-term social relations can last on mars. This is an area of research that has been explored extensively around earth already. In anticipation of the “real thing”.
  - pavlov 3y ago
    Also, the psychology of spending hundreds of billions to build a colony that becomes a tomb is probably too creepy for politicians and voters to contemplate. Many cultures have a concept of sanctity of the grave, or right of sepulchre. From that point of view, what happens to the Mars habitat where those people died? Does it become a mausoleum forever? Anything else seems very fraught. It would be a bizarre spectacle to send another trillion-dollar crew whose first task is to clear out the corpses...

lukan 3y ago

"Much better idea to find the few people that are fine living and dying on mars" A few? Over 200 000 payed a scammy company money, to maybe be considered a one way mars colonist. https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_One https://en.m.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mars_One This year was supposed to be the year they finally go, but surprisingly it did not work out somehow, maybe because the company only knew how to do good looking 3D models and no real hardware. But they did make the proof, that there is no shortage of willing people to make a one way trip. And in general I am more optimistic, I am pretty sure there will be humans on Mars in the next 50 years. I am not a fan of the guy in general, but I do believe Elon Musk is serious about going there and I can imagine him still dreaming of being the first on Mars (and then build his kingdom there). And the chinese might start a new space race. Then there is India, Brazil, .. lots of ambitions and national pride and egos. Or crowdfunding goes really mainstream and we organize a pure scientific mars mission at some point? 50 years are a long time and the rate of change right is crazy. It does not have to go all in a bad direction. In either way, rocket starts became something very normal. At some point it is just about doing enough of then, for the fuel and supplies. And we can do that. Also robots have come far, who can be send ahead.

steveBK123 3y ago

We will.. in the metaverse, interacting with LLM chatbot alien avatars!

bookofjoe 3y ago

"I'd like to die on Mars, just not on impact." Elon Musk, in his 2013 keynote address at SXSW

BobaFloutist 3y ago
Finally, something we can all agree on, fans and haters alike!

nojvek 3y ago

I agree with you. The bigger question in my mind is that in 50 years, will we need to even land humans on mars, or will be able to build space-faring robots where we can upload our consciousness and send that instead. Humans, or generally all complex life on this planet is well ... adapted to this planet. Space is very hostile to us. There's a reason why Mars has had six rovers, with opportunity working for 15 years. Distance to Moon (384,400km) is 0.0017 of that to Mars (225,000,000,000km). Humans have spent barely a few days moonwalking.

krystianantoni 3y ago

To me the whole concept of this exploration is to first find good base building and fuel materials while lowering the cost of travel. Once that happens it will be very quick paced race to those materials. Like in any other business venture this mars/interstellar is a bet, so doubts of success are natural.