Humans Will Never Colonize Mars

http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designss.html http://www.godandscience.org/apologetics/designss.html

Millennial ships? Because it would take thousands of years at near SOL to get to anywhere that wouldn't kill us in a short time.. The Earth is unique, the conditions here we have not seen anywhere else in the universe. The parameters for an 'earth" are many and we are finding more all the time.. from our galaxy, our position in that galaxy, our solar system with the right balance of large planets.. in the right orientation, the right type of star, then a planet in the "sweet spot" in distance from the star, and a moon of just the right size and distance and orbit to cause the weather we have.. in a perfect balance too..
When people say "a universe of infinite possibilities.. the first problem with that statement is , while the universe is vast, it is not infinite, and the second thing is so many "things" have to be just right to have a "habitable" planet.

 

I agree with what you are saying, but we must face a certainty, this planet will kill us, eventually. If we cannot leave it, we die. A colony on Mars could not sustain the human race, nothing in this system could. For our long term survival we require the ability to move outwards. Generation ships are a potential solution, but if we want to survive, we need to do something.

I completely understand the uniqueness of this planet, and it is entirely possible that we may never find another like it that is habitable. So many variables are unknown about every Earth-like planet we have found. Not to mention the changes that would take place on the way there. Its just my opinion that if we are going to go to space we need to go big, think big, or stay home...

 

I dunno. People risk their lives and die just for a "perfect" selfie. Nobody really cares.

 

Anyone who decides to play in space or on another planet will be doing so voluntarily and will be well aware of the risks....no one else need be involved or concerned for their lives beyond the standard "What If".

 

Cosmic radiation is a long term hazard. Mainly elevating the risk of cancer among astronauts. Not an immediate problem.

But raising the lifetime risk of astronauts getting cancer from 20% (typical rate for males) to 25% is not a big deal.

 

A Mars colony would not require aid from Earth indefinitely.

 

Only six months each way.

 

Occasionally it would require air and water, unless that was harvested from somewhere else, no system could recycle it 100% indefinitely and population increases or expansion would require additional resources that don't exist on Mars.

 

Not indefinitely it wouldn't. It has a carbon dioxide atmosphere that can be broken down to produce oxygen using nuclear power.

 

Oxygen perhaps, but water is another issue, and just as vital. I still don't see Mars as anything but a short-term stepping stone, the human race cannot survive unless it has planet, and if this one does its worst to kill us we will have to go elsewhere. That is my primary concern with all space travel, our continuance as a species...

 

There is no such place in this solar system where humans can survive without any outside assistance. Titan perhaps has advantages as you could go outside without a pressure suit. Just a simple oxygen mask and insulated cold suit. But there is still not substantial amounts of oxygen there.

 

I don't accept your numbers in part because your 20% number is the percent of all Americans who will DIE of cancer.

So, I think you're misquoting something or fabricating numbers to make a point.

 

We need to think long term, much further out. This system cannot sustain us if Earth fails us, and it will eventually. We need to be looking and think about every available option. To be fair, we are still taking the baby steps in most of these sciences, what we may learn in a decade or two could change everything. Don't get me wrong, I totally respect what our scientists are doing now, but we have a long way to go...

 

So. 40% then. What elevated rate of cancer for astronauts do you think is an acceptable level?

And don't say "none" because no one believes that.

 

I agree. Except that I don't see a benefit in a surface station at this time.

There are benefits in an orbiting station. That could allow for assembling explorers, telescopes, etc. for further missions. It would reduce the power and antenna requirements for communication by satellites that leave Earth orbit. It would allow for easiier access to material from asteroids. I think most asteroid material would be used for construction in space, as landing material on a planet is really expensive.

We should be exploring Titan and other places in our solar system. It's not clear to me that Mars is the best choice for some permanent manned station.

 

It is if six doctors hold you down and the seventh wields the scalpel and excises your cancerous right nut.

 

removing a testicle is a simple five minute procedure requiring at most some local anesthetic. Basically "snip, snip".

 

There are already regulations on how much the government may radiate employees - including astronauts.

NASA is given slightly more lax requirements - they can radiate astronauts a little more than other employees.

I'm suggesting they have work to do in order to meet that requirement even though it is more lax.

 

I've done that along with spring branding, dehorning and injections of calves. As ground crew, 4 of us would handle 600 calves using pocket knives for removing testicles - taking 2 days. The location was in the Oregon desert so it was old school - no electric equipment for heating branding irons, no anesthetic, no squeeze chutes (toss the calf and hog tie), etc.

At least in calves there is a surprisingly long amount (maybe a yard?) of vas deferens that often gets removed as well.

I agree it is "snip snip" (if you happen to have scissors). However, I would suggest that a doctor come along for the ride if the "patient" is a human.

 

Regulations can be waived.

 

I don't know of a justification for that.

 

If you accept that putting a manned mission on Mars should be a national priority then that is all the justification you need.

Again, if you have qualified astronauts lining up to volunteer to take the risks, why should others be whining about their welfare?

 

There are two ways to reduce radiation exposure during space flight. The first is simply to decrease travel time by increasing velocity. The second is to increase the level of radiation shielding. Both are doable using technologies currently under development.

There are various experiments being conducted in electromagnetic and fusion propulsion that would reduce the hypothetical travel time to Mars down from 6 months or more to 6 weeks or even less. (Note by fusion I am not referring to fusion reactors as a source of power but to experiments in 'pulsed fusion' for use in space flight. As for shielding there are experiments being conducted in the use of magnetic fields as a source of shielding for cosmic rays and other particles and material scientists are looking at various methods of physical shielding (including potentially water).

You could also I suppose simply genetically engineer your astronauts (and everyone else) to be more resistant to cancer by giving them multiple copies of useful genes like P53 which is what has evolved in animals like whales and elephants as a means of eliminating cancer.

Anyway a lot of the problems discussed here seem to assume attempts will be made to colonize Mars using current 'tin can' space technology - which IMO is a bit like assuming Europeans would attempt to colonize North America using row boats. Project forward and allow for the development of spaced based mining and construction technologies plus other developments and there is no reason why larger and more complex vessels would not be up to the task - assuming humans still want to colonize Mars in two hundred years or so. It might be simpler just to send our machines and have them poke around unless or until we decide terraforming the planet is an option.

 

As Dr. Zubrin has pointed out, Columbus made it to America with ships that were basically built for the Mediterranean not the Atlantic Ocean.

 

??? No, there needs to be a justification for ordering NASA to spend the dollars required to put a man on Mars.

There always needs to be a justification for spending tax dollars at that rate. And, in this case it includes the near certainty that it would be a setback to science performed by NASA. That is, there are actual justifications for NOT doing it even if you don't care about taxes, deficits, debt, etc.

In fact, we have lots of "national priorities" that have solid justification and not enough emphasis.

This is the same issue as safety for all employees, isn't it?