4 ms·

Colonization will entail a pretty large population of people across all fields of expertise. You will also have all supplies and materials necessary for any sor

Colonization will entail a pretty large population of people across all fields of expertise. You will also have all supplies and materials necessary for any sort of contingencies. You're not going to have the electrician trying to improv as a doctor. I think it's highly probable that many people will die, but not in particularly grueling ways, but far more mundane. Around 600 people have gone to space (which I'll define as at least LEO). During this (including training), about 30 people have died. A death ratio of 5% is ridiculously high, and most of the incidents have been far from remarkable. Fire in a capsule, oxygen valve failure, heat shield failure, don't use solid rocket boosters, and so on. It'll be the same stuff with Mars, except the death ratio will likely be substantially higher. It'll again be from just incidents that will look stupid in hindsight. And they will have been, but when you're working to prevent a billion bad outcomes, a few will always manage to wiggle through the cracks. All things considered I think Mars colonization will probably be far easier than the guys who were engaging in civilization building in the past. Settlers in times past were dealing with hostile natives, hostile waters, unknown diseases, unpredictable weather, even mundane things like rats getting into your rations, and had very little ability to measure or adapt to what they were dealing with. For instance Vasco de Gama (Europe to India guy) took 3 weeks to cross the Indian ocean the first time. On his way back, it took 3 months. By the time he returned, about 70% of his crew was dead. Colonizing Mars will be absolutely brutal but we will have quite far fewer unknowns. Of course the issues will will have to deal with will be far harsher than anything anybody else ever had to manage, but they are known - and so that really simplifies the process.

9dev 2y ago
People arguing in favour of mars colonisation always kind of skip the time between now and a future in which we’re able to ship an entire populace to another planet. We will need to send smaller crews first. Not just to do the science and validation necessary, but also because it would be plain unethical to send a large group of people without knowing what effect that kind of travel will have on them. And all of that in spite of knowing how that venture would even be technologically feasible. If you haven’t, I can highly recommend reading A city on mars by Kelly & Zach Weinersmith.
- somenameforme 2y ago
  Well this is literally the point of Starship, so the timeframes are probably quite a lot closer than many may realize. And due to the extensive amount of labor involved, a fairly large group will be absolutely necessary. But I'd emphasize that colonizing Mars, or anywhere, will likely literally never be safe, and no amount of "science and validation" can really change that. Huge numbers of people still regularly die in the most mundane of things, like roofing - where about 1 in 2000 workers lose their lives per year. Over a career of a few decades, those are some pretty unpleasant odds. And on Mars roofing would look like the safest job imaginable. We're going to be doing absolutely everything from scratch - industry, construction, manufacturing/processing, and more. And doing it all in conditions unlike anything on Earth, and where if you're exposed to atmosphere - even briefly, you're dead. There's going to be an unavoidably high death rate. If you want to wait until things are safe then I think that's perfectly understandable. But in turn you should also understand that people have different perspectives on life.
  - 9dev 2y ago
    > will likely literally never be safe, and no amount of "science and validation" can really change that. This is not how engineering works. You can’t just hand wave all practical problems away and throw adventurers with a death wish at them until a few stick to Mars. A single failed Starship mission with a full crew is going to be the death sentence for any further exploration of a mars colony. I would very much like to see this happening, but not at the cost of entirely avoidable deaths. Work smarter, not harder.
    - somenameforme 2y ago
      It's not about a death wish at all, but about being aware of the inherent risks, which most people are not. For instance internal estimates of the Moon landings were extremely stark. The prevailing mindset at NASA was around 50/50 - James Webb himself was quoted saying as much. Neil Armstrong was optimistic and thought they had about a 90% chance of survival, Aldrin felt they had about a 66% chance. This is why eulogies for these astronauts were written before they even set foot on the launch pad. The fact that we nailed each Moon landing was thanks largely to good fortune. There's just so many unknown unknowns that you simply cannot get risk down to levels where failure is not a very real possibility. And in fact even the original Moon landing very nearly ended in catastrophe and only succeeded due to some superhuman piloting and good luck on top. The autopilot was going to set them down in a boulder strewn area so Armstrong took manual control and ended up landing with less than a minute of fuel remaining. And even when landing, he failed to carry out a process (immediate shut down) that was thought necessary to avoid a catastrophic failure by NASA. But with ever-recurring good fortune, they were wrong. I would highly recommend "Failure Is Not An Option" [1] by chief flight director Gene Krantz. What I am talking about is an acceptance that substantial risk is simply going to be involved in space flight for the foreseeable future, and very possibly forever. And now space flight to distances further than ever, with the goal of starting an entirely new civilization, for the first time ever? I think it's extremely important to accept and acknowledge that this will involve plenty of death, so as to ensure that those who do sign up are fully aware of the risks. Armstrong was probably lying to himself there thinking they had a 90% chance of survival, and that's not good for anybody. [1] - https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Failure-Is-Not-an-Option/Gene-Kranz/9780743214476 https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Failure-Is-Not-an-Opt...
tired-turtle 2y ago
The settlers were ipso facto the hostile group, as they were settling another people’s land. Otherwise, we’d call them visitors. (edit) My intention wasn’t political correctness but that words are important. “unwanted” is more fitting than “hostile,” as it matches the intention of the settlers.
germinalphrase 2y ago
“ All things considered I think Mars colonization will probably be far easier than the guys who were engaging in civilization building in the past.” Those explorers of eras past were going places that not only sustained ample plant and animal resources (in quantities that would surprise modern people) but entire human populations. There is almost nothing on Mars that will sustain us.
- somenameforme 2y ago
  Not entirely. I'd look up things like the 'Starving Time' at Jamestown. [1] Jamestown lost 90% of its population in a single winter, and was left resorting to cannibalism and other such things. In the past you were constantly preparing for winter. And if something went wrong, either with your crops, water, surprise weather, or whatever else - you died. And that's if disease, natives, weather, or a million other issues didn't get you. And that's after you got there. Crossing the sea meant you were completely subject to the whims of the weather, often sailing into the literal unknown, all the while your rations were slowly dwindling and your crew was starting to rot from the inside out dying rather unpleasant deaths - scurvy wouldn't be entirely resolved until the 20th century! With Mars we won't really have to deal with any of this, because the issues and variables will be mostly known ahead of time, and the supplies per settler will also be dramatically higher meaning a far greater window of time to reach self sustainability. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starving_Time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starving_Time
  - germinalphrase 2y ago
    Jamestown is notable because of the deprivation, not because every settlement was a Jamestown. Certainly, we understand the variables and an identical journey on earth would be dramatically safer (though still not without peril). Even still, these explorers were able to harvest resources during their journey as well as immediately upon arrival at the destination. With Mars, there’s nothing there. No fertile soil. No potable water. No known life. It’s an actively hostile environment. Colonizers to Mars will be exceptionally reliant on carrying the totality of their survival resources. Sure - if we spend the next centuries terraforming Mars robotically (or some other scheme), we could change the math on this - but I have a hard time swallowing the argument that crossing to, and colonizing, Mars is anything but orders of difficulty harder than the feats of those explorers. I’m a nerd and want to believe, but it’s fanatical thinking for… a long time.

9dev 2y ago

People arguing in favour of mars colonisation always kind of skip the time between now and a future in which we’re able to ship an entire populace to another planet. We will need to send smaller crews first. Not just to do the science and validation necessary, but also because it would be plain unethical to send a large group of people without knowing what effect that kind of travel will have on them. And all of that in spite of knowing how that venture would even be technologically feasible. If you haven’t, I can highly recommend reading A city on mars by Kelly & Zach Weinersmith.

somenameforme 2y ago
Well this is literally the point of Starship, so the timeframes are probably quite a lot closer than many may realize. And due to the extensive amount of labor involved, a fairly large group will be absolutely necessary. But I'd emphasize that colonizing Mars, or anywhere, will likely literally never be safe, and no amount of "science and validation" can really change that. Huge numbers of people still regularly die in the most mundane of things, like roofing - where about 1 in 2000 workers lose their lives per year. Over a career of a few decades, those are some pretty unpleasant odds. And on Mars roofing would look like the safest job imaginable. We're going to be doing absolutely everything from scratch - industry, construction, manufacturing/processing, and more. And doing it all in conditions unlike anything on Earth, and where if you're exposed to atmosphere - even briefly, you're dead. There's going to be an unavoidably high death rate. If you want to wait until things are safe then I think that's perfectly understandable. But in turn you should also understand that people have different perspectives on life.
- 9dev 2y ago
  > will likely literally never be safe, and no amount of "science and validation" can really change that. This is not how engineering works. You can’t just hand wave all practical problems away and throw adventurers with a death wish at them until a few stick to Mars. A single failed Starship mission with a full crew is going to be the death sentence for any further exploration of a mars colony. I would very much like to see this happening, but not at the cost of entirely avoidable deaths. Work smarter, not harder.
  - somenameforme 2y ago
    It's not about a death wish at all, but about being aware of the inherent risks, which most people are not. For instance internal estimates of the Moon landings were extremely stark. The prevailing mindset at NASA was around 50/50 - James Webb himself was quoted saying as much. Neil Armstrong was optimistic and thought they had about a 90% chance of survival, Aldrin felt they had about a 66% chance. This is why eulogies for these astronauts were written before they even set foot on the launch pad. The fact that we nailed each Moon landing was thanks largely to good fortune. There's just so many unknown unknowns that you simply cannot get risk down to levels where failure is not a very real possibility. And in fact even the original Moon landing very nearly ended in catastrophe and only succeeded due to some superhuman piloting and good luck on top. The autopilot was going to set them down in a boulder strewn area so Armstrong took manual control and ended up landing with less than a minute of fuel remaining. And even when landing, he failed to carry out a process (immediate shut down) that was thought necessary to avoid a catastrophic failure by NASA. But with ever-recurring good fortune, they were wrong. I would highly recommend "Failure Is Not An Option" [1] by chief flight director Gene Krantz. What I am talking about is an acceptance that substantial risk is simply going to be involved in space flight for the foreseeable future, and very possibly forever. And now space flight to distances further than ever, with the goal of starting an entirely new civilization, for the first time ever? I think it's extremely important to accept and acknowledge that this will involve plenty of death, so as to ensure that those who do sign up are fully aware of the risks. Armstrong was probably lying to himself there thinking they had a 90% chance of survival, and that's not good for anybody. [1] - https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Failure-Is-Not-an-Option/Gene-Kranz/9780743214476 https://www.simonandschuster.com/books/Failure-Is-Not-an-Opt...

tired-turtle 2y ago

The settlers were ipso facto the hostile group, as they were settling another people’s land. Otherwise, we’d call them visitors. (edit) My intention wasn’t political correctness but that words are important. “unwanted” is more fitting than “hostile,” as it matches the intention of the settlers.

germinalphrase 2y ago

“ All things considered I think Mars colonization will probably be far easier than the guys who were engaging in civilization building in the past.” Those explorers of eras past were going places that not only sustained ample plant and animal resources (in quantities that would surprise modern people) but entire human populations. There is almost nothing on Mars that will sustain us.

somenameforme 2y ago
Not entirely. I'd look up things like the 'Starving Time' at Jamestown. [1] Jamestown lost 90% of its population in a single winter, and was left resorting to cannibalism and other such things. In the past you were constantly preparing for winter. And if something went wrong, either with your crops, water, surprise weather, or whatever else - you died. And that's if disease, natives, weather, or a million other issues didn't get you. And that's after you got there. Crossing the sea meant you were completely subject to the whims of the weather, often sailing into the literal unknown, all the while your rations were slowly dwindling and your crew was starting to rot from the inside out dying rather unpleasant deaths - scurvy wouldn't be entirely resolved until the 20th century! With Mars we won't really have to deal with any of this, because the issues and variables will be mostly known ahead of time, and the supplies per settler will also be dramatically higher meaning a far greater window of time to reach self sustainability. [1] - https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starving_Time https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Starving_Time
- germinalphrase 2y ago
  Jamestown is notable because of the deprivation, not because every settlement was a Jamestown. Certainly, we understand the variables and an identical journey on earth would be dramatically safer (though still not without peril). Even still, these explorers were able to harvest resources during their journey as well as immediately upon arrival at the destination. With Mars, there’s nothing there. No fertile soil. No potable water. No known life. It’s an actively hostile environment. Colonizers to Mars will be exceptionally reliant on carrying the totality of their survival resources. Sure - if we spend the next centuries terraforming Mars robotically (or some other scheme), we could change the math on this - but I have a hard time swallowing the argument that crossing to, and colonizing, Mars is anything but orders of difficulty harder than the feats of those explorers. I’m a nerd and want to believe, but it’s fanatical thinking for… a long time.