Astronauts landing on the planet Mars

[PeroK]

All that largely with rockets that get thrown away after each flight. Imagine where air travel would be if aircraft could only make one flight.

I appreciate that reusable rockets are an essential prerequisite, but that doesn't make a journey to Mars affordable.

 

[PeroK]

I also found this:

https://www.inverse.com/innovation/spacex-mars-city-codex

Extraordinary nonsense from start to finish. Apart from astrophysicist Martin Rees, who is quoted as saying:

that the idea was a “dangerous delusion [...] dealing with climate change on Earth is a doddle compared to making Mars habitable.”

Well, precisely!

Three examples of the nonsense:

1) In March 2019, Musk wrote on Twitter that “it’s possible to make a self-sustaining city on Mars by 2050, if we start in 5 years & take 10 orbital synchronizations.” With 26 months between synchronizations, that would mean it would take around 22 years at a minimum to build the city.

2) In November 2018, Neil deGrasse Tyson declared that "a whole category of war has the potential of evaporating entirely" with planet-hopping technology. That's because humans would have the ability to venture out further and mine resources from even further away.

"In space, you have no need to fight a war, just go to another asteroid and get your resources," deGrasse said.

3) Instead, Bezos prefers to build O’Neill-style colonies in Earth’s orbit. This, he claims, could support up to one trillion humans.

It's also quite funny to see the visionaries trash each other's visions:

Musk responded to Bezos’ vision later that month:

“Makes no sense. In order to grow the colony, you’d have to transport vast amounts of mass from planets/moons/asteroids. Would be like trying to build the USA in the middle of the Atlantic Ocean!”

 

[Oldman too]

It's also quite funny to see the visionaries trash each other's visions:

Been following that banter (drama) for sometime now, I'm wondering if the "Will Smith" effect will factor in for a little comic relief.

 

[Oldman too]

Mission Architecture Using the SpaceX Starship Vehicle to Enable a Sustained Human Presence on Mars is a publication exploring how to establish a long-term Mars base.

You know, that's the closest thing to a plan I've seen yet. It does have potential, hope to see it developed further.

 

[PeroK]

You know, that's the closest thing to a plan I've seen yet. It does have potential, hope to see it developed further.

It's more an aspiration than a plan. To have a permanent settlement on Mars you need, among other things, a fully equipped, staffed and functioning hospital. How many hundreds (even thousands) of specialists are involved in building a major hospital? Note that building contractors only have experience of building on Earth. There is no experience of construction on Mars. Who is going to undertake such a construction and how much time and budget will they ask? Elon Musk and NASA can plan all they like to build a city on Mars, but there is no one with the capability to do anything much on Mars.

They scoff at terrestrial construction projects that take years or decades and, ironically, imagine that all the problems that beset construction projects cannot happen on Mars. The plan is generally predicated on things being no harder to do on Mars than on Earth - because the laws of physics and chemistry are the same. And, that in general, although projects go wrong on Earth, they ask what could possibly go wrong with a construction project on Mars?

You might claim that we only need shelter, food, water, oxygen and medical facilities to survive on Mars. That's a permament lockdown. Look at the physical and psychological damage that the COVID lockdowns caused.

Living on a small scientific base for a few years is possible, but to ask people to spend the rest of their lives effectively in a prison is something else entirely.

 

[PeroK]

PS even a plan for, say, five to ten scientists to travel to Mars, live for a couple of years and return to Earth comes with a very significant risk that none of them makes it back alive. That risk is a major limiting factor for even getting the first human mission to Mars. To have a human being set foot on Mars by 2050 (and come back alive) would be a major achievement. And, likewise, a permanently staffed scientific base (as the ISS) by 2100 would be a huge achievement.

That's where Musk's vision of a city by 2050 (or even by 2100) is as near to impossible as makes no difference.

 

[PeroK]

Here's a thought. If we could build a spacecraft capable of sustained acceleration at ##g \approx 10 \ m/s^2##, then we could get to Mars in at most 4 days (2 days acceleration to the half-way point and 2 days deceleration for the rest of the journey). Even at ##1 \ m/s^2## the journey would take only at most 14 days.

Musk has just offered $40 billion to buy twitter. If nothing is impossible, why can't he build such a spacecraft with that money?

Why is that not part of his plan?

Surely an accelerating spacecraft would be another essential to make the project viable? Getting to Mars at any time of year in days rather than up to a year every 2.5 years must be a prerequisite for major construction on the planet.

 

[Melbourne Guy]

To have a permanent settlement on Mars you need, among other things, a fully equipped, staffed and functioning hospital.

Not sure why you've noted this particular item of infrastructure, @PeroK. Or when you think it needs to be built. There were many settlements in human history that did not have a hospital for long periods as they grew. Fit and healthy participants, a few nurses and doctors, and an expectation that things will go wrong that they cannot fix seems the more likely approach, than anyone worrying about a hospital for many years after landing.

Your other points about construction and isolation are considerations, of course, but I'm expecting a lot of 'suck and see' in any off-Earth colony, because no amount of planning or preparing will account for all eventualities.

 

[Oldman too]

It's more an aspiration than a plan.

That is actually a better term to use (Aspiration). I tend to get stuck in these "gray area" boxes that inevitably lead to less than optimum wording. My impression of the Aspiration/Plan was and I guess still remains, it's a good start, with a lot of work to be done. I really would like to see the program developed further, there are possibility's and concepts here that have real promise.

To have a permanent settlement on Mars you need, among other things, a fully equipped, staffed and functioning hospital. How many hundreds (even thousands) of specialists are involved in building a major hospital?

I see a permanent settlement on mars, along with the supporting infrastructure such as you mention to not become a reality for at least the remainder of the century if not longer. I'm basing this on the reality of the involved logistics, survival learning curve in a toxic environment, development of construction techniques Etc. Plenty of variables (some certainly hidden) to get the hang of, nothing will be easy but it's becoming a redo of "manifest destiny" if you will pardon the anachronism.
That being said, the plan to land multiple cargo loads in advance of the invasion by the Earth aliens... (If Mars has an H.G.Wells, that's how he would view it) and the plan to use starship as a living quarters initially does seem like a doable, if not practical approach.

On the construction of Mars infrastructure, I have spent nearly my entire life in construction (terrestrial for sure) so I do realize the everyday problems that even a smooth running site has on a regular basis, let alone when a problem pops up. I can't find a "Murphy's Law" equivalent for a Martian job site but if there is one I wouldn't want to deal with it. The one upside would be that 62% lower gravity would be a bonus when rigging crane loads and the Hazard pay would be out of this world... ( I jokes).

The plan is generally predicated on things being no harder to do on Mars than on Earth - because the laws of physics and chemistry are the same.

Jeez... that's stretching things a bit.

And, that in general, although projects go wrong on Earth, they ask what could possibly go wrong with a construction project on Mars?

Give me a minimum of 6 months and I'll give you a list of what could go wrong. This reminds me of Alfred E. Nuemans catch phrase.

You might claim that we only need shelter, food, water, oxygen and medical facilities to survive on Mars. That's a permament lockdown. Look at the physical and psychological damage that the COVID lockdowns caused.

I imagine there will be intensive psychological profiling and a large pool of potential applicants to choose the first crews from, not unlike a nuke sub crew. This should mitigate a certain percentage of the Psycho-Social issues, It wouldn't have to be as bad, so to say as "30 days in the hole" (although I like that song).

Living on a small scientific base for a few years is possible, but to ask people to spend the rest of their lives effectively in a prison is something else entirely.

This is what I see as being the reality for the immediate future. A martian society wouldn't develop to any extent in the short term but given decades or a few century's, It's bound to take off, particularly if terraforming turns out to be viable in any sense of the word. On Prison, in this context, I view Prison as a state of mind, not an imposed sentence. It would be easier to volunteer for "Life" if the Science was your passion. (Yes, I would if it were possible, take the trip with no regrets.)

PS even a plan for, say, five to ten scientists to travel to Mars, live for a couple of years and return to Earth comes with a very significant risk that none of them makes it back alive. That risk is a major limiting factor for even getting the first human mission to Mars. To have a human being set foot on Mars by 2050 (and come back alive) would be a major achievement. And, likewise, a permanently staffed scientific base (as the ISS) by 2100 would be a huge achievement.

That's where Musk's vision of a city by 2050 (or even by 2100) is as near to impossible as makes no difference.

On the crew mortality rate, I'm always an optimist (although Apollo1 tempered that optimism). I'd wager Martian Crew 1 gets back in one piece, the unmanned supply missions should be good for debugging the details so we wouldn't necessarily be going in blind.

That's where Musk's vision of a city by 2050 (or even by 2100) is as near to impossible as makes no difference.

It seems likely that in that 50 year timeline 2050-2100 there is a good chance that Mars will be a very busy neighborhood, barring unforeseen complications of course. On Martian "cities" I think the goal post will adjust as needed to define what is a city, that seems to be how the game gets played.

Here's a thought. If we could build a spacecraft capable of sustained acceleration at ##g \approx 10 \ m/s^2##, then we could get to Mars in at most 4 days (2 days acceleration to the half-way point and 2 days deceleration for the rest of the journey). Even at ##1 \ m/s^2## the journey would take only at most 14 days.

I regret to inform you that I just can't Grok the maths involved. But I do get the acceleration-deceleration part. Do you have an idea what the energy/fuel requirements would be to accelerate-decelerate say 100 metric tons, ( I believe that's the claimed payload on starship but I could be wrong. )

Musk has just offered $40 billion to buy twitter. If nothing is impossible, why can't he build such a spacecraft with that money?

Why is that not part of his plan?

That is an interesting question... Processing...

Surely an accelerating spacecraft would be another essential to make the project viable? Getting to Mars at any time of year in days rather than up to a year every 2.5 years must be a prerequisite for major construction on the planet.

It would certainly be an advantage.

We seem to be in general agreement on most points, the divergence appears to be involving the development timeline. That is understandable considering the R&D involved to make it viable. Its also noteworthy that Mr. Musk has a habit of missing his development timelines but he also has a habit of succeeding where it counts.

Just a side question here, do you foresee Earths nations repeating history and laying individual claims to regions and resources on Mars? kind of Colonialism 2.0 .

 

[mfb]

@PeroK: You just keep dismissing everything as "impossible", "fantasy", "nonsense" and so on if it's not already existing technology, and the only reason you give is (paraphrased) "I can't see it happening". History has shown that approach to fail even in the examples you chose yourself. You dismissed a peer-reviewed paper written by experts as "billionaire fantasy".
I don't see how further discussion with you would be useful here.

 

[PeroK]

You dismissed a peer-reviewed paper written by experts as "billionaire fantasy".

It wasn't a peer-reviewed paper. It was a content-free SpaceX publicity piece.

 

[PeroK]

@PeroK: You just keep dismissing everything as "impossible", "fantasy", "nonsense" and so on if it's not already existing technology.

No, I don't. It's the timescales that are fantasy. The following are possible:

Human mission to Mars by 2050; permanent scientific base on Mars by 2100. Asteroid mining by ?. Spacecraft that can accelerate in space and get to Mars in days or weeks, rather than months or years. Almost 100% robotic construction capability. Improved, downsized and automated medical capabilities.

These will probably all happen at some point. And, after they have happened, then some of the prerequisites are in place for a human settlement on Mars.

What you and Musk are doing is fantasising about something that requires hundreds of significant technological developments before it's feasible

Look at any construction site and it's obvious that that model cannot be exported to Mars. It's almost all human labour. Come back in 50 years and see buildings being built by androids and you have a start.

Don't tell me that you're going to ship thousands of construction workers to Mars in the 2030's and 40's, when we haven't even set foot on Mars.

And, my point remains, if a Mars city is possible by 2050, then how is it that there is no solution to climate change by then? The scientists working on climate change have to face the hard realities that you and Musk do not when you fantasise about living on Mars.

 

[Oldman too]

@mfb and @PeroK Hello, I've been revisiting this thread in my mind for sometime and I can't seem to shake the thought that in spite of the debate team dialogue, everyone is, in reality, in agreement on the overall concept of Martian exploring (exploiting?) and colonizing. I know this may seem unlikely but please allow me to bring up a few examples.

First, I won't be rehashing my post #79 monologue, no need repeating those thoughts. What I'd like to do is cover a few points at a time and see how it goes.

In #67 mfb quotes, “Starship is not just an incremental change,” says Jennifer Heldmann of NASA’s Ames Research Center. “This is a significant paradigm shift.”
The reason that I point out Ms. Heldmann of ARC, Moffett Field is that she is also the lead author of https://www.liebertpub.com/doi/10.1089/space.2020.0058#
the paper lists a total of four researchers from NASA/Ames, One from NASA, Four from Bechtel Corporation,
(https://www.aerospacemanufacturinga...rsities-developing-lunar-infrastructure-tech/)
Three from,( https://www.psi.edu/research ) one from, Department of Earth,Atmospheric, and Planetary Science, Purdue University.
One Geologist from (USGS) Oh yes, and what appears to be a legal team.
Along with, Margarita M. Marinova, ( https://doi.org/10.1089/153110701750137477 )
and Christopher P. McKay, ( https://doi.org/10.1089/ast.2012.0878 )

In addition to the Authors I've noticed that the Paper was from "New Space" published by Mary Ann Liebert, inc. I'll add a link to their submission Guidelines and Policies concerning Peer reveiw etc. for reference. https://home.liebertpub.com/authors/pdf

Author Disclosure Statement:
No competing financial interests exist.

Funding Information:
Portions of this work were funded by a grant to PI J.L. Heldmann through NASA's SSERVI (Solar System Exploration Research Virtual Institute) for the RESOURCE project.

This has all the appearances of a viable preliminary study that has potential to set the stage for what's going to be a centuries long "Project" that no one living now is going to see even half finished.
However we might as well get started on it because the reality is this,
It's more about our future than our present.

The main point I want to make is this, I don't see anyone having the opinion that we aren't going to colonize or develop Mars.
The disagreement seems to stem from methods and time frame rather than, will it happen?

At this point, the hour is late and my beer is flat, I'm checking out for the night and will see what the discussion looks like in the morning.

Cheers