Humans Will Never Colonize Mars

Oh yeah. Titan is a great target given a person can move around outside there without a pressure suit due to the pressure being close to that of Earth (about 1.75 of Earths IIRC).

I was just using Pluto as an example to show that there is no place in this solar system that is truly beyond our grasp technologically.

 

And here is the amazing thing that we understand, thanks to speculation and evolution.

Even assuming that microbial life has spawned on other planets, the odds are that they can infect humans or any other life from Earth are tiny. In fact, the odds are that what would happen is that our own microbes will destroy them shortly after they come in contact with them.

That is because life on Earth has gone through billions of years of a brutally Darwinian existence. Essentially "Eat, or be eaten". What we have is billions of years of genetic evolution to make each and every microbe the strongest and most likely to survive.

And we know this process is still ongoing. The change in HIV in the last 50 years as well as anti-bacteriological bacteria is proof of this.

Now what chance will some microbes that have only had limited interaction with new life forms for millennia have against these new "Super Germs" from their viewpoint? It would be like pitting the early almost-marsupial early mammals against a Badger.

 

Actually as Dr. Robert Zubrin pointed out microbes from Earth and microbes from Mars probably would not even recognize or interact with each other.

For the same reasons that a Mako shark won't become the number one predator if you put some in the Serengeti and a Bengal Tiger won't become the number one predator in the Pacific ocean if you put some of them there.

 

Who cares. The bottom line is it worked and there is no reason it wouldn't work today.

We have lots of technology that still works fine even if its 50 years old.

B-52 bombers, Minuteman ICBMs, Soyuz space capsules, the list goes on and on.

 

In what year do you believe we could fly a human to Pluto, land, use local resources to make fuel for a return trip and then safely land that living human on earth?

 

This doesn't mean the astronaut would live.

Suggesting there exists some old rocket design does not mean the problems of long trips in space are solved.

I agree that at some time they will be. The question is when and why.

So far, I'm most interested in the "why", because I just don't see a reason for spending the required taxes on sending a human to the surface of some solar system object when there isn't any known benefit to science for doing so.

 

Why do you obsess over "science"? It's not like its the only reason to explore.

2069 for obvious reasons.

By the way, this thread was about "colonists" on Mars. Can I remind people of just how hazardous to human life "colonies" were when established on Earth.? Colonies were not infrequently utterly decimated. The idea that colonies could be established anywhere. Mars, Luna, Antarctica, or on the sea floor without a lot of people dying is ridiculous and shouldn't be a shock.

When people try, people die. It's that simple.

 

It's just not the case that "explore" means that a human has to be there. And, colonies started when the Brits believed it would be profitable - not as some test of human survival. So, if you want to compare to that, you need to describe a justification based on profitability - which you can not do.

We're doing a LOT of exploring. We've been exploring Mars for many years, for example.

I'm NOT saying we shouldn't explore.

And, your confidence that people will die isn't a particularly good argument when attempting to justify paying the stupendous costs required to try to sustain a human life. We should do that only if there is a real justification.

I don't see you working on a justification for sending humans yet. I'm sure there will be one in the future once we've done more exploring, but right now I don't see a justification for spending billions on space cowboys.

 

What's wrong with those?

 

Fortunately, others do not share your opinion.

 

There are things men must do to remain men.

 

OK.

So, at least I know why you're fixated on rockets!

 

I know. Quite true, obviously.

I just don't know why.

All I'm asking for is a justification for spending that kind of money for missions that I think are totally within the range of what we have been doing and can do with variously equipped rovers - thus for FAR fewer tax dollars.

I would understand it more if there were a dual use objective, such as creating a space station at a stable lagrange point or in Mars orbit. That would have significant use in science (communications networking, assembly of stuff we want to use in space, etc.). It could be a way to stake out space at one of the two stable lagrange points - I don't know how that's going to be shared real estate with so many countries ramping up space exploration. It could be a point for launching vehicles from outside a gravity well. It would be more accessible for materials delivery, resupply, and rescue than would a gravity well.

I just don't see any advantage of a human on the Moon or Mars at this point. Maybe we'll find one sometime, but we haven't so far - especially given that current plans seem to be for little more than landing and leaving.

 

Oh don't make some idiotic penis inference. Ever read the science fiction short story "Cathedrals"? It is about an unintended manned Mission to Mars.

"Unintended" only in the sense that NASA only officially plans a one man flyby mission of Mars but the astronaut assigned to the mission, his wife and a couple of NASA mission planners decide that he will declare an emergency while approaching Mars and have to land. Requiring the U.S. government to spend 160 billion dollars to send a four man crew to return him to Earth.

 

Please help me understand how this helps justify a manned mission to Mars.

Just curious - how was that space cowboy protected from radiation? Did he hide behind supply boxes when things got bad - like our ISS folks do?

 

His water supply protected him on the way to Mars. Sandbags on top of his surface module while he was on Mars (for about three years IIRC until the relief expedition arrived).

But if it works on the ISS what would be wrong with using it on a manned Mars mission?

 

The ISS is still inside earth's magnetosphere, so radiation at the ISS is nowhere near as serious as in space or on Mars.

I've seen statements by scientists that 3' of water would be required for radiation protection. On the surface,they say it would take about 12' of Moon or Mars regolith. Of course, other material could help, but it would still require a lot of water and it would need to cover all parts of the ship where space cowboys would hang out for any significant time.

I don't believe we're going to send along that much water - especially if there is a requirement for only one Earth launch.

 

Cool! That sounds like an incredible mission!

While I do believe the creation of a survivable trip to Mars will be a huge undertaking, I certainly don't believe it is impossible.

The question I have is whether it is a justifiable expenditure right now, as today we do have the capability to explore objects throughout our solar system without it being necessary for humans to ride along.

 

33333333333333333333333

I've never heard any projection for 3 feet of water or 12 feet of Mars regolith. Unless I read it wrong and you were saying "inches" and not "feet".

At any rate, the radiation storm cellar concept for a habitat module enroute to or from Mars is just that. A cellar. A place for the crew to stand or sit in for the hours of greatest radiation exposure. Not all the time.

 

A really quick search didn't find the site that I trusted.

But, this guy seems to have done the math and come up with the same numbers:
https://space.stackexchange.com/que...-be-required-to-provide-radiation-shielding-i

The saving grace is that I'd put a large bet on NASA using several different strategies at the same time - so that no single strategy has to carry the full load.

One problem with using water is that there are other significant uses for water. And, if you start draining your radiation protection for fuel, etc., then radiation protection goes down.

NASA does not claim to have a good solution for going to Mars yet. A Moon mission would be a test of various ideas for a Mars mission, since the Moon is so much nearer. They're saying that a Mars mission would be a minimum travel time of 6 to 10 months each way. Obviously, that's a lot of exposure time.
https://www.nasa.gov/feature/goddar...pace-radiation-at-moon-mars-solar-cosmic-rays

 

Again, the moon is so different from Mars that you would gain very little knowledge there that would apply to a manned Mars mission.

Dr. Robert Zubrin in his book "The Case for Mars" very thoroughly debunks the idea that a long duration Lunar mission would serve any useful purpose for developing a manned Mars mission.

 

I read the information at the link. It is flawed in so many ways.

1) It assumes that radiation shielding must be enough to reduce radiation exposure to basically "Earth normal" levels. There is no reason why astronauts couldn't be exposed to many times that level with minimal risks of long term health problems. Cancer 20 years after the mission ends shouldn't even be considered.

2) The information at the link assumes a far, far larger amount of space in a Mars bound spacecraft for each astronaut than Mars Direct assumes. Mars Direct assumes an average of 250 square feet for each astronaut on the way to Mars, and 125 square feet for each astronaut on the way back. The return voyage is partially compensated due to the communications delays growing shorter and shorter as the Mars return vehicle gets closer to Earth.

 

It may very well be that you just answered your own question. At this point the full answer is not and cannot be known in detail like most explorations...this has always been the case, The Spanish did not "know" what benefits would arise from crossing the Atlantic, not did the Vikings. We didn't "Know" what western expansion of America would provide but Louis and Clark did it anyway. As for possible benefits...think about the Asteroid Belt.

 

Yes, I'm all in favor of exploration!

The thing is, we don't actually have to send humans to do that.

I'm certainly interested in what asteroids have to offer, too. We've had missions to explore asteroids and I'd be in favor of doing more of that, as they could find important elements besides providing information concerning how our solar system works. But, we don't have to send humans to do that. We can send small craft that can do analysis, collect samples, etc.

It could well turn out to be more important to have a serious space station capable of constructing/assembling craft in space. Today, telescopes are limited by what can fit in a nosecone of some rocket. What an amazingly arbitrary constraint on exploration! Perhaps we could build telescopes from asteroid material plus mirror segments and controlware from earth.

Mining asteroids and then ferrying the material into some major gravity well seems highly unfortunate and hugely expensive unless some unmanned mission finds an asteroid made of diamonds or some other fabulous material.

Also, I doubt humans will be involved in mining asteroids. When we send a backhoe and dump truck to some asteroid, they probably won't need operators.

 

You sure have a lot of faith in the cost effectiveness and general capabilities of unmanned technology. Kind of like those people thinking we'll never have another war needing large numbers of soldiers and airmen because "future wars are going to be fought with drones and in cyberspace" (exact quote).