6 ms·

Buzz Aldrin is very passionate about colonizing Mars [1]. He says there are two big things that have to be accomplished before we can colonize Mars. The first i

Buzz Aldrin is very passionate about colonizing Mars [1]. He says there are two big things that have to be accomplished before we can colonize Mars. The first is to train astronauts to live in a confined isolated space for 260 days (the length of a journey to Mars) [2]. This alternative journey trajectory increases the 260 days. The second is harder: We need to go to Mars at least three times and bring back the men and women successfully. Once is not enough. Three proves we've mastered the engineering, financial, physical, and physiological aspects. [1] http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/space/aldrin-mars-au.html http://www.pbs.org/wgbh/nova/space/aldrin-mars-au.html [2] http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/jun/03/mock-mission-mars-moscow-hangar http://www.guardian.co.uk/science/2010/jun/03/mock-mission-m...

debacle 12y ago
> We need to go to Mars at least three times and bring back the men and women successfully. First we'd need to find a way to bring back pretty much anything else successfully, no? The first is an easy problem to solve, compared to pretty much every other issue. More space (or better space) is a non-linear issue.
- semi-extrinsic 12y ago
  Unless you're envisioning spacecraft with literally hundreds of astronauts, the first will be anything but easy to solve. Doesn't help having an awesome spaceship if everyone on board goes batshit crazy after six months.
  - diltonm 12y ago
    Bubbleheads are tested in Submarine School for compatibility with the idea of living in the intellectual equivalent of a sewer pipe for months on end with each other. I'd assume NASA would do the same. End of the day make sure you know who holds the keys to the weapons locker.
- ams6110 12y ago
  Why do we need to bring them back? Pioneers don't normally set off with a guarantee or even likelihood of coming back.
  - hobbes78 12y ago
    If in 1500 you dropped some European settlers in the Americas, there a high chance they'll survive. If in 2014 you drop some settlers in Mars, they would surely die. Plenty of robots must be sent beforehand to build greenhouses, setup solar panel arrays, dig deep tunnels to provide shielding against cosmic radiation, etc.
IshKebab 12y ago
Wouldn't they have to live in a confined isolated space on Mars too?
- IndianAstronaut 12y ago
  Yes. Mars has an extremely thin atmosphere that would kill us if we did not have pressurized suits and stations.
  - rjaco31 12y ago
    Don't forget the radiations. The main problem of the Mars atmosphere is that it's too thin to stop enough of them for human beings.
- Zikes 12y ago
  A spacecraft could double as living space on the planet, alongside whatever other prefab buildings they bring along. A cargo hold packed full of prefab walls could itself double as building space, once emptied. Also there would be more opportunities to leave those spaces to go outside. It would certainly still be cramped by conventional standards, but conceivably much less so than the flight there.
- ceejayoz 12y ago
  They'd be getting out of the habitat regularly to do science/construction, though.
- diltonm 12y ago
  Yes. Beyond food and supplies, people would have to either want to spend their lives while on Mars in containerization or there would have to be a large pressurized common area for work and socialization. With a thin atmosphere stuff falling from space is a problem as it would be on the Moon so building underground would be required. That's why I think going to Venus first makes sense, get people used to the long travel periods living in confined spaces dependent on machines.
- Gravityloss 12y ago
  You can build more space from local materials. Also excursions, though you need a space suit.
sampo 12y ago
> two big things that have to be accomplished before we can colonize Mars Colonizers could probably live on packaged food from here 'til Judgment Day (or as long as Earth is willing to send always more supplies), but I would still add the maintenance of man-made ecosystems for food production to the list of big problems that we have not yet solved.
- rjaco31 12y ago
  The biggest problem is not food, it's radiation.
brudgers 12y ago
A one way trip is more feasible. Resources spent on supplying a base will yield more knowledge, if slightly less PR. Furthermore, if there are indigenous biologic agents there, I don't think we want them coming back. Like the Greek expedition to Asia Minor, Mars is a burn the ships mission.
- mlrtime 12y ago
  If you can guarantee #2, doesn't #1 become much more difficult?
  - brudgers 12y ago
    Not really. Either we are going to inhabit Mars as residents or just spend money on space tourism. If we're intending to inhabit it, then the deal has to be one way. Otherwise, sending machines is vastly more cost effective.
- deleted 12y ago
  [deleted]
- ssorallen 12y ago
  Elon Musk has said from the beginning of SpaceX that trips to Mars would have to return as well. It's not because of the humans but because the cost of producing the space ships will be so large that it's not feasible to shoot them to Mars once and leave them there; they have to be reusable. > The principle behind all of its vehicles is total re-usability; every single system must be able to be serviced and pressed back into operation. This is to cut down on the already astronomical cost of space flight (pun intended), making it more affordable for private companies to conduct missions into the heavens. The company’s main goal is to eliminate the equipment cost for space travel, leaving fuel as the only financial burden. http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/122923-spacex-ceo-claims-he-can-send-you-on-a-round-trip-to-mars-for-500k http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/122923-spacex-ceo-claims-...
  - debacle 12y ago
    The ship itself returning would be relatively trivial as long as it didn't need to degravitate from Mars.
diltonm 12y ago
>> The first is to train astronauts to live in a confined isolated space for 260 days Bubbleheads can do that, current and ex. >> We need to go to Mars at least three times and bring back the men and women successfully. I don't know that the delicacy of the orbital entry described is going to be sufficient for long term operations. It sounds like an artistic dance combined with luck. I think the old wing it into space at high velocity then put on the brakes method is more deterministic. Whole transportation systems on Earth function this way.

debacle 12y ago

> We need to go to Mars at least three times and bring back the men and women successfully. First we'd need to find a way to bring back pretty much anything else successfully, no? The first is an easy problem to solve, compared to pretty much every other issue. More space (or better space) is a non-linear issue.

semi-extrinsic 12y ago
Unless you're envisioning spacecraft with literally hundreds of astronauts, the first will be anything but easy to solve. Doesn't help having an awesome spaceship if everyone on board goes batshit crazy after six months.
- diltonm 12y ago
  Bubbleheads are tested in Submarine School for compatibility with the idea of living in the intellectual equivalent of a sewer pipe for months on end with each other. I'd assume NASA would do the same. End of the day make sure you know who holds the keys to the weapons locker.
ams6110 12y ago
Why do we need to bring them back? Pioneers don't normally set off with a guarantee or even likelihood of coming back.
- hobbes78 12y ago
  If in 1500 you dropped some European settlers in the Americas, there a high chance they'll survive. If in 2014 you drop some settlers in Mars, they would surely die. Plenty of robots must be sent beforehand to build greenhouses, setup solar panel arrays, dig deep tunnels to provide shielding against cosmic radiation, etc.

IshKebab 12y ago

Wouldn't they have to live in a confined isolated space on Mars too?

IndianAstronaut 12y ago
Yes. Mars has an extremely thin atmosphere that would kill us if we did not have pressurized suits and stations.
- rjaco31 12y ago
  Don't forget the radiations. The main problem of the Mars atmosphere is that it's too thin to stop enough of them for human beings.
Zikes 12y ago
A spacecraft could double as living space on the planet, alongside whatever other prefab buildings they bring along. A cargo hold packed full of prefab walls could itself double as building space, once emptied. Also there would be more opportunities to leave those spaces to go outside. It would certainly still be cramped by conventional standards, but conceivably much less so than the flight there.
ceejayoz 12y ago
They'd be getting out of the habitat regularly to do science/construction, though.
diltonm 12y ago
Yes. Beyond food and supplies, people would have to either want to spend their lives while on Mars in containerization or there would have to be a large pressurized common area for work and socialization. With a thin atmosphere stuff falling from space is a problem as it would be on the Moon so building underground would be required. That's why I think going to Venus first makes sense, get people used to the long travel periods living in confined spaces dependent on machines.
Gravityloss 12y ago
You can build more space from local materials. Also excursions, though you need a space suit.

sampo 12y ago

> two big things that have to be accomplished before we can colonize Mars Colonizers could probably live on packaged food from here 'til Judgment Day (or as long as Earth is willing to send always more supplies), but I would still add the maintenance of man-made ecosystems for food production to the list of big problems that we have not yet solved.

rjaco31 12y ago
The biggest problem is not food, it's radiation.

brudgers 12y ago

A one way trip is more feasible. Resources spent on supplying a base will yield more knowledge, if slightly less PR. Furthermore, if there are indigenous biologic agents there, I don't think we want them coming back. Like the Greek expedition to Asia Minor, Mars is a burn the ships mission.

mlrtime 12y ago
If you can guarantee #2, doesn't #1 become much more difficult?
- brudgers 12y ago
  Not really. Either we are going to inhabit Mars as residents or just spend money on space tourism. If we're intending to inhabit it, then the deal has to be one way. Otherwise, sending machines is vastly more cost effective.
deleted 12y ago
[deleted]
ssorallen 12y ago
Elon Musk has said from the beginning of SpaceX that trips to Mars would have to return as well. It's not because of the humans but because the cost of producing the space ships will be so large that it's not feasible to shoot them to Mars once and leave them there; they have to be reusable. > The principle behind all of its vehicles is total re-usability; every single system must be able to be serviced and pressed back into operation. This is to cut down on the already astronomical cost of space flight (pun intended), making it more affordable for private companies to conduct missions into the heavens. The company’s main goal is to eliminate the equipment cost for space travel, leaving fuel as the only financial burden. http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/122923-spacex-ceo-claims-he-can-send-you-on-a-round-trip-to-mars-for-500k http://www.extremetech.com/extreme/122923-spacex-ceo-claims-...
- debacle 12y ago
  The ship itself returning would be relatively trivial as long as it didn't need to degravitate from Mars.

diltonm 12y ago

>> The first is to train astronauts to live in a confined isolated space for 260 days Bubbleheads can do that, current and ex. >> We need to go to Mars at least three times and bring back the men and women successfully. I don't know that the delicacy of the orbital entry described is going to be sufficient for long term operations. It sounds like an artistic dance combined with luck. I think the old wing it into space at high velocity then put on the brakes method is more deterministic. Whole transportation systems on Earth function this way.