3 ms·

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 pl

by 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...
    - 9dev 2y ago
      I see, and I agree that this simple is a very dangerous venture. But I stand by my opinion that we should try to eliminate all risk we can, anything else would be negligence. And that includes incrementally scaling up missions once were reasonably confident in the general primitives, like how does a human being behave if they're trapped in a tin can for a year with others, how bad is radiation during the journey and on Mars for squishy bodies, or does being exposed to microgravity for a prolonged amount of time fuck with people's reproductive abilities, none of which we have answers for, or a way to collect them, without sending small and controlled missions. I'm adding that to my library, thanks!

by 9dev 2y ago

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...
  - 9dev 2y ago
    I see, and I agree that this simple is a very dangerous venture. But I stand by my opinion that we should try to eliminate all risk we can, anything else would be negligence. And that includes incrementally scaling up missions once were reasonably confident in the general primitives, like how does a human being behave if they're trapped in a tin can for a year with others, how bad is radiation during the journey and on Mars for squishy bodies, or does being exposed to microgravity for a prolonged amount of time fuck with people's reproductive abilities, none of which we have answers for, or a way to collect them, without sending small and controlled missions. I'm adding that to my library, thanks!