6 ms·

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.

by 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...
  - mulmen 3y ago
    You just keep sending more people to the colony. This is how humans do. We will do whatever we did the last time we explored a new frontier. How many European colonies failed in the new world? What did they do? Nothing new under the sun.
    - pavlov 3y ago
      Some important differences: - Sailing to New England didn’t cost a trillion dollars. - The expedition wasn’t live-streamed to every pocket back in England. - People didn’t know what could be found in America. There was a sense of adventure. In contrast, we know what’s on Mars and the answer is basically “nothing”.
      - mulmen 3y ago
        No single journey to New England cost a trillion dollars but neither does a single manned trip to Mars. Over time hundreds of ships brought thousands of people to dozens of colonies. Ships kept bringing people even after the colonies were self-sustaining. How much did european colonization of the east coast cost? History is full of people selling everything and taking a one way trip into a new frontier.
        ffgjgf1 3y ago
        > How much did european colonization of the east coast cost? Not a lot. People actually paid to move there because it resulted in a significant improvement in living conditions/income/etc. on average (besides the few earliest attempts). Colonization and exploration was almost entirely driven by profit union at least the 1800s or so. Colonizing Mars wouldn’t be even remotely comparable in almost any way to what happened in the Americas/Australia/etc. > selling everything and taking a one way trip into a new frontier. Yeah, because there was a lot of free land there/natural resources/high demand for labor etc.
      - ffgjgf1 3y ago
        > People didn’t know what could be found in America. There was a sense of adventure To be fair they kind of did. Or rather they never expected to finding anything extremely different to what they have experienced in Europe (besides very low population density and all the benefits resulting from that).
    - ben_w 3y ago
      > How many European colonies failed in the new world? In at least one case the failure of the colony resulted in the country which founded it being forced into a slightly one-sided merger with its nearest neighbour, which is why the British flag now has blue in it. Modern nations may be mindful of this and wish to avoid repeating the mistake. On the other hand, they may have a case of the FOMOs after looking at how successful the USA became… at least if they convince themselves their new space colony won't also declare independence just like the USA did.
  - stereolambda 3y ago
    I would imagine that people willing to go to Mars permanently would be among the more scientifically minded and they wouldn't be stopped by concerns about what happens with dead matter left after them. The very last one could be cremated and buried by automatons. We have bodies laying frozen on Mount Everest today. But I expect that either civilization would be able to resupply them with people or even connect them back eventually, or alternatively (if we do decline) too much stuff would be happening on Earth for people to really notice the fate of Martians.
    - pavlov 3y ago
      > "The very last one could be cremated and buried by automatons." But then, if we can send automatons that are able to operate a station to such a high degree that they could be trusted to cremate the humans, why send the humans at all...?
Amezarak 3y ago
There will never be a long-term colony on Mars. Mars is not a habitable planet. Compared to Earth, Mars has no atmosphere. (100k pascals vs 600 pascals.) Mars has no magnetic field. Mars has 1/3rd the gravity of Earth. We know low gravity has deleterious health effects. Anybody who lived on Mars would have to live inside a pressurized building at all times. Stepping outside would be lethal. If we're able to to build sustainable colonies in these conditions then we might as well focus on colonizing the Moon first. There would be nothing special about Mars, we might as well just live in space habitats. If there is a future of Martian colonization it involves extensive genetic engineering and massive terraforming projects we can only dream of now.
- hersko 3y ago
  Gravity on mars is probably a lot more viable for long term living than on the moon.
  - Amezarak 3y ago
    Sure. But the real issue is both of them are absolutely lethal and uninhabitable environments. There is no plan or even real dream to change that. Stepping outside on Mars will kill you just as dead as it will on the Moon. If you're going to force colonizing one of them for some bizarre reason and at huge expense you may as well pick the closer one. It's much more feasible to just build a bunch of habitats using rotation to generate artificial gravity than to plonk yourself down in a gravity well that is totally hostile to human life, and even that stretches the bounds of possibility, let alone practicality or desirability. We all watched Star [Trek|Wars] growing up, I get it. Mars is not a viable colonization project. The best you could ever hope for would be, at tremendous expense, an Antarctic-style research station.

by Fred34 3y ago

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...
- mulmen 3y ago
  You just keep sending more people to the colony. This is how humans do. We will do whatever we did the last time we explored a new frontier. How many European colonies failed in the new world? What did they do? Nothing new under the sun.
  - pavlov 3y ago
    Some important differences: - Sailing to New England didn’t cost a trillion dollars. - The expedition wasn’t live-streamed to every pocket back in England. - People didn’t know what could be found in America. There was a sense of adventure. In contrast, we know what’s on Mars and the answer is basically “nothing”.
    - mulmen 3y ago
      No single journey to New England cost a trillion dollars but neither does a single manned trip to Mars. Over time hundreds of ships brought thousands of people to dozens of colonies. Ships kept bringing people even after the colonies were self-sustaining. How much did european colonization of the east coast cost? History is full of people selling everything and taking a one way trip into a new frontier.
      - ffgjgf1 3y ago
        > How much did european colonization of the east coast cost? Not a lot. People actually paid to move there because it resulted in a significant improvement in living conditions/income/etc. on average (besides the few earliest attempts). Colonization and exploration was almost entirely driven by profit union at least the 1800s or so. Colonizing Mars wouldn’t be even remotely comparable in almost any way to what happened in the Americas/Australia/etc. > selling everything and taking a one way trip into a new frontier. Yeah, because there was a lot of free land there/natural resources/high demand for labor etc.
    - ffgjgf1 3y ago
      > People didn’t know what could be found in America. There was a sense of adventure To be fair they kind of did. Or rather they never expected to finding anything extremely different to what they have experienced in Europe (besides very low population density and all the benefits resulting from that).
  - ben_w 3y ago
    > How many European colonies failed in the new world? In at least one case the failure of the colony resulted in the country which founded it being forced into a slightly one-sided merger with its nearest neighbour, which is why the British flag now has blue in it. Modern nations may be mindful of this and wish to avoid repeating the mistake. On the other hand, they may have a case of the FOMOs after looking at how successful the USA became… at least if they convince themselves their new space colony won't also declare independence just like the USA did.
- stereolambda 3y ago
  I would imagine that people willing to go to Mars permanently would be among the more scientifically minded and they wouldn't be stopped by concerns about what happens with dead matter left after them. The very last one could be cremated and buried by automatons. We have bodies laying frozen on Mount Everest today. But I expect that either civilization would be able to resupply them with people or even connect them back eventually, or alternatively (if we do decline) too much stuff would be happening on Earth for people to really notice the fate of Martians.
  - pavlov 3y ago
    > "The very last one could be cremated and buried by automatons." But then, if we can send automatons that are able to operate a station to such a high degree that they could be trusted to cremate the humans, why send the humans at all...?

Amezarak 3y ago

There will never be a long-term colony on Mars. Mars is not a habitable planet. Compared to Earth, Mars has no atmosphere. (100k pascals vs 600 pascals.) Mars has no magnetic field. Mars has 1/3rd the gravity of Earth. We know low gravity has deleterious health effects. Anybody who lived on Mars would have to live inside a pressurized building at all times. Stepping outside would be lethal. If we're able to to build sustainable colonies in these conditions then we might as well focus on colonizing the Moon first. There would be nothing special about Mars, we might as well just live in space habitats. If there is a future of Martian colonization it involves extensive genetic engineering and massive terraforming projects we can only dream of now.

hersko 3y ago
Gravity on mars is probably a lot more viable for long term living than on the moon.
- Amezarak 3y ago
  Sure. But the real issue is both of them are absolutely lethal and uninhabitable environments. There is no plan or even real dream to change that. Stepping outside on Mars will kill you just as dead as it will on the Moon. If you're going to force colonizing one of them for some bizarre reason and at huge expense you may as well pick the closer one. It's much more feasible to just build a bunch of habitats using rotation to generate artificial gravity than to plonk yourself down in a gravity well that is totally hostile to human life, and even that stretches the bounds of possibility, let alone practicality or desirability. We all watched Star [Trek|Wars] growing up, I get it. Mars is not a viable colonization project. The best you could ever hope for would be, at tremendous expense, an Antarctic-style research station.