I don't know why we are even discussing people on Mars, we can't even make a self-sustaining biodome on Earth, how are we suppose to do that on another planet? Atleast a moonbase idea is potentially close enough and low enough gravity that people could potentially leave, receive supplies and equipment, or even have more people sent to help within a realistic timespan. What does Mars bring you? Less sunlight, an abrasive and harsh environment, 1 year+ for emergency supplies, and likely zero ability to actually leave Mars again.
Anyone who is trying to sell a Mars base is either ignorant, a moron, a massive grifter, or all of the above.
I don't understand the projection of one person's reasonable lack of enthusiasm, onto the entire human race.
There are 8 billion of us. If a few want to make a go of it, you can be sure they will know the ridiculous challenges.
Space travel costs are falling rapidly. The Solar System has vast resources that seem impossible to reach today, but won't be for long in historical terms.
People still die climbing Mount Everest, for no purpose I can see. But I am not going to gripe if people continue making the climb.
But it isn't currently a difficult task, it is a literally impossible task with current knowledge and understanding.
Once we can make a human-sustaining bubble on Earth, then maybe it would be worth trying to go for Mars. Right now claiming we can go to Mars and either return or live there is just as feasible as us going to and living at Alpha Centauri. It is pure sci-fi. Im closer to getting my legs replaced with robot legs that can outrun Usain Bolt than anybody is to colonizing another planet. Or building a secret base at the bottom of the Marianas Trench.
There are many tasks that are still impossible with the current knowledge and understanding, but making a closed human-sustaining environment and going to Mars are not among those.
These 2 tasks can be solved with only the current knowledge, but they depend on the solution of many technological problems that require only a lot of money and of work.
Only a fraction of the huge amounts of money that have been invested now in AI would suffice to solve these problems, if a serious effort would be done towards such goals.
Whether it is useful to spend so many resources on such goals is a different question, but developing the technologies for an almost-closed self-sustaining environment is something that certainly would also generate by-products that would be useful on Earth, not only in interplanetary expeditions.
Sure we can go to Mars, on a one way trip. I have yet to see any feasible plan to bring anyone back.
And you can claim we can make self-sustaining environments all you want, but people have been making such claims for decades and every attempt has failed horribly, so im going to go with it is still impossible until proven otherwise.
Right now there is a space race happening, and solving for each challenge is just engineering.
Given the demand for rare earths and other exotic and critical metals and substances, with the potential for specialized zero gravity factories, the race will continue for the forseeable future.
The question of there bieng life on Mars or the slightest chance of colinisation will keep a steady pressure to set up bases and full round trip transportation.
Simple facts, 'elon'is abandoning falcon to focus on starship, because as soon as starship is fully commisioned, China will have built one, and if China likes it, then they will scale and the only advantage 'elon' has is the jump.The only reasons China will get into 'Big Space' is if they see proffit AND prestige,which they do, so the race is on now,PLACE YOUR BETS, pikers, punters, big rollers, grifters, and all
Yet another reason that Mars colonisation is such a distant and stupid pipedream. I'm not saying humanity shouldn't strive to continue exploring, but if we can't live sustainably on the one habitable planet we already have, the idea of expanding to one that's objectively hostile as some sort of backup plan is pure delusion. Musk isn't a dreamer - he's a con man.
The notion that we need to achieve utopia here before moving forward is so toxic. If people in the past had thought that way, we'd still be trying to make the perfect village in Africa.
"Humanity" isn't a preschool classroom where we all hold hands and do one thing at a time like the teacher says. It's fine for some people to be working towards the future while others are trying to fix things in the present.
This seems like a response tediously intent on missing the point: if you genuinely want to build a sustainable settlement on Mars, you should start by proving out sustainable settlements in harsh environments on Earth -- you could build out sustainable settlements in the Antarctic, the depths of the Sahara, and under the ocean all with substantially less expense/risk than trying to build a sustainable settlement on Mars. You'd learn how to build better sustainable settlements by doing so and encounter some of the problems you'll encounter on Mars with less dire consequences. And you don't have to choose one or the other: you can parallel path it by continuing to improve rocketry while building up sustainability strategies in harsh environments on Earth. The fact that Musk is intent on reaching Mars as the only difficult problem just underscores that he is not serious about settling Mars (or, perhaps, that he simply isn't that bright).
You are right that for any interplanetary human expedition a prerequisite is to be able to make a closed environment for humans, where carbon dioxide, water, food left-overs and almost all other waste products generated by humans are recycled, producing free oxygen, potable water and food.
However, this does not mean that other required technologies, like for transportation or for protection against dust, cannot be solved before.
I also agree that recycling technologies are actually more important than spacecraft technologies, because they are equally applicable on Earth, not only on the path to other planets or in bases established there.
I do not believe that interplanetary travel will be possible for humans otherwise than in spaceships with artificial gravity produced by rotation.
This not only would avoid the health problems (the experiments on mice in the ISS imply that a gravity as high as 2/3 of that of Earth might be necessary for preventing harmful effects during long-term missions) but it would also simplify many of the recycling technologies, because handling fluids and powders is difficult in weightlessness. It would also simplify the growing of plants or fungi.
There is no reason that people who want to take on a ridiculous challenge shouldn't.
> ...you could build out sustainable settlements in the Antarctic, the depths of the Sahara...
That isn't an argument. I don't know what that is.
People who die on their way up to Mount Everest could .... ? People who spend their lives playing games could ... ? What a strange way to think.
Its good that different people really do want to do different things. Some of the best of have been taking on unbelievable challenges, pass or fail, live or die, since history began. Celebrate it.
Almost nobody stays over the winter in Antartica because its horrible and cold. Given Mars is significantly more hostile, what chance has anyone got in surviving there and remaining sane and well ?
Svalbard is not the same as Antartica, the night period of staying indoors is a shorter time.
People do stay McMurdo over winter and there are many physical and mental problems because of the conditions, isolation and limited physical limitations.
In big cities there are a lot of people who, at least for a big part of the year, spend all their lives only inside their home apartment and inside their work office.
If someone had been willing to spend many times more money on a base in Antarctica, it could have been built to have a much greater interior space and with much more comfortable facilities, so that for the people living inside it there would not have been significant differences between living there and living in some big city of the Earth, especially now, when with modern communications they can speak face-to-face with anyone else on the Earth, at any time.
You are making a lot of uneven equations for places that are very different. Firstly mental health suffers when its completely dark. Secondly the homes you mention are not completely isolated to the same extent that living in Antartica is. The former residents can and do still go out, they have to get food for starters and that variety is significant compared to the Antartica experience.
People living in the far north type of places suffer significant suicide and drinking problems, when compared to typical people from other places because of the dark.
Mental health living in Mars is going to be a killer, life there is worse than living in a isolated prison. Try living in your home without any human contact or fresh air, and now imagine doing that for the rest of your life.
Lastly, money is not unlimited. The cost of a launch today is already tens of billions, the ISS cost hundreds of Billions. The cost of a mars base will be Trillions. Not sure why you think this is trivial consideration. If the US wont give free healthcare to its citizens who actually are productive and pay taxes, why would it spend an equivalent amount for a man or woman or a few of them to grow potatoes on Mars ?
I don't know why we are even discussing people on Mars, we can't even make a self-sustaining biodome on Earth, how are we suppose to do that on another planet? Atleast a moonbase idea is potentially close enough and low enough gravity that people could potentially leave, receive supplies and equipment, or even have more people sent to help within a realistic timespan. What does Mars bring you? Less sunlight, an abrasive and harsh environment, 1 year+ for emergency supplies, and likely zero ability to actually leave Mars again.
Anyone who is trying to sell a Mars base is either ignorant, a moron, a massive grifter, or all of the above.
I don't understand the projection of one person's reasonable lack of enthusiasm, onto the entire human race.
There are 8 billion of us. If a few want to make a go of it, you can be sure they will know the ridiculous challenges.
Space travel costs are falling rapidly. The Solar System has vast resources that seem impossible to reach today, but won't be for long in historical terms.
People still die climbing Mount Everest, for no purpose I can see. But I am not going to gripe if people continue making the climb.
But it isn't currently a difficult task, it is a literally impossible task with current knowledge and understanding.
Once we can make a human-sustaining bubble on Earth, then maybe it would be worth trying to go for Mars. Right now claiming we can go to Mars and either return or live there is just as feasible as us going to and living at Alpha Centauri. It is pure sci-fi. Im closer to getting my legs replaced with robot legs that can outrun Usain Bolt than anybody is to colonizing another planet. Or building a secret base at the bottom of the Marianas Trench.
There are many tasks that are still impossible with the current knowledge and understanding, but making a closed human-sustaining environment and going to Mars are not among those.
These 2 tasks can be solved with only the current knowledge, but they depend on the solution of many technological problems that require only a lot of money and of work.
Only a fraction of the huge amounts of money that have been invested now in AI would suffice to solve these problems, if a serious effort would be done towards such goals.
Whether it is useful to spend so many resources on such goals is a different question, but developing the technologies for an almost-closed self-sustaining environment is something that certainly would also generate by-products that would be useful on Earth, not only in interplanetary expeditions.
Sure we can go to Mars, on a one way trip. I have yet to see any feasible plan to bring anyone back.
And you can claim we can make self-sustaining environments all you want, but people have been making such claims for decades and every attempt has failed horribly, so im going to go with it is still impossible until proven otherwise.
Elon first please. Elon first.
Right now there is a space race happening, and solving for each challenge is just engineering. Given the demand for rare earths and other exotic and critical metals and substances, with the potential for specialized zero gravity factories, the race will continue for the forseeable future. The question of there bieng life on Mars or the slightest chance of colinisation will keep a steady pressure to set up bases and full round trip transportation. Simple facts, 'elon'is abandoning falcon to focus on starship, because as soon as starship is fully commisioned, China will have built one, and if China likes it, then they will scale and the only advantage 'elon' has is the jump.The only reasons China will get into 'Big Space' is if they see proffit AND prestige,which they do, so the race is on now,PLACE YOUR BETS, pikers, punters, big rollers, grifters, and all
Yet another reason that Mars colonisation is such a distant and stupid pipedream. I'm not saying humanity shouldn't strive to continue exploring, but if we can't live sustainably on the one habitable planet we already have, the idea of expanding to one that's objectively hostile as some sort of backup plan is pure delusion. Musk isn't a dreamer - he's a con man.
The notion that we need to achieve utopia here before moving forward is so toxic. If people in the past had thought that way, we'd still be trying to make the perfect village in Africa.
"Humanity" isn't a preschool classroom where we all hold hands and do one thing at a time like the teacher says. It's fine for some people to be working towards the future while others are trying to fix things in the present.
People arent fixable
Who said anything about a utopia? I'm just saying Mars isn't a backup plan.
[flagged]
This seems like a response tediously intent on missing the point: if you genuinely want to build a sustainable settlement on Mars, you should start by proving out sustainable settlements in harsh environments on Earth -- you could build out sustainable settlements in the Antarctic, the depths of the Sahara, and under the ocean all with substantially less expense/risk than trying to build a sustainable settlement on Mars. You'd learn how to build better sustainable settlements by doing so and encounter some of the problems you'll encounter on Mars with less dire consequences. And you don't have to choose one or the other: you can parallel path it by continuing to improve rocketry while building up sustainability strategies in harsh environments on Earth. The fact that Musk is intent on reaching Mars as the only difficult problem just underscores that he is not serious about settling Mars (or, perhaps, that he simply isn't that bright).
You are right that for any interplanetary human expedition a prerequisite is to be able to make a closed environment for humans, where carbon dioxide, water, food left-overs and almost all other waste products generated by humans are recycled, producing free oxygen, potable water and food.
However, this does not mean that other required technologies, like for transportation or for protection against dust, cannot be solved before.
I also agree that recycling technologies are actually more important than spacecraft technologies, because they are equally applicable on Earth, not only on the path to other planets or in bases established there.
I do not believe that interplanetary travel will be possible for humans otherwise than in spaceships with artificial gravity produced by rotation.
This not only would avoid the health problems (the experiments on mice in the ISS imply that a gravity as high as 2/3 of that of Earth might be necessary for preventing harmful effects during long-term missions) but it would also simplify many of the recycling technologies, because handling fluids and powders is difficult in weightlessness. It would also simplify the growing of plants or fungi.
The appeal to a false dichotomy.
There is no reason that people who want to take on a ridiculous challenge shouldn't.
> ...you could build out sustainable settlements in the Antarctic, the depths of the Sahara...
That isn't an argument. I don't know what that is.
People who die on their way up to Mount Everest could .... ? People who spend their lives playing games could ... ? What a strange way to think.
Its good that different people really do want to do different things. Some of the best of have been taking on unbelievable challenges, pass or fail, live or die, since history began. Celebrate it.
Almost nobody stays over the winter in Antartica because its horrible and cold. Given Mars is significantly more hostile, what chance has anyone got in surviving there and remaining sane and well ?
No one's allowed to put down roots in Antarctica; colonization is explicitly forbidden by treaty.
A couple thousand people live in Svalbard, though.
Svalbard is not the same as Antartica, the night period of staying indoors is a shorter time.
People do stay McMurdo over winter and there are many physical and mental problems because of the conditions, isolation and limited physical limitations.
https://www.coolantarctica.com/Antarctica%20fact%20file/anta...
That is only a problem of money.
In big cities there are a lot of people who, at least for a big part of the year, spend all their lives only inside their home apartment and inside their work office.
If someone had been willing to spend many times more money on a base in Antarctica, it could have been built to have a much greater interior space and with much more comfortable facilities, so that for the people living inside it there would not have been significant differences between living there and living in some big city of the Earth, especially now, when with modern communications they can speak face-to-face with anyone else on the Earth, at any time.
You are making a lot of uneven equations for places that are very different. Firstly mental health suffers when its completely dark. Secondly the homes you mention are not completely isolated to the same extent that living in Antartica is. The former residents can and do still go out, they have to get food for starters and that variety is significant compared to the Antartica experience.
People living in the far north type of places suffer significant suicide and drinking problems, when compared to typical people from other places because of the dark.
Mental health living in Mars is going to be a killer, life there is worse than living in a isolated prison. Try living in your home without any human contact or fresh air, and now imagine doing that for the rest of your life.
Lastly, money is not unlimited. The cost of a launch today is already tens of billions, the ISS cost hundreds of Billions. The cost of a mars base will be Trillions. Not sure why you think this is trivial consideration. If the US wont give free healthcare to its citizens who actually are productive and pay taxes, why would it spend an equivalent amount for a man or woman or a few of them to grow potatoes on Mars ?