NASA Announcement/Discovery

[fishonjazz]

There have not been any manned missions to Mars for numerous reasons. One of which is travel time. It is supposed to take our fastest ships 6-9 months to reach Mars and once they are done another 6-9 months to return home. They have been studying the psychological effects of that in people. Not to mention being able to land safely and then take back off on a world with 0 support. It is a HUGE technological hurdle.

I think we are fully capable. What I am hoping for is a joint Russian/Chinese announcement that they are sending a joint manned mission to Mars. That will kick our butts (Americans) into gear.

Thanks for the legit answer.
I was thinking that the travel time was the biggest reason.

I guess there has just been so much talk about going to Mars and life on mars and whatnot in movies and media that I just figured that man has been there. And the fact that we have sent equipment and stuff to Mars already.

Again, thanks for the answer. Much better than joebagadogpoops answer. (Just playing with ya Joe. You are one of my favorites)

 

[colton]

There have not been any manned missions to Mars for numerous reasons. One of which is travel time. It is supposed to take our fastest ships 6-9 months to reach Mars and once they are done another 6-9 months to return home. They have been studying the psychological effects of that in people.

Not just psychological. Last time I looked into this, there was an immense physical effect, namely the permanent loss of bone mass. (search) Yes, looks like it's still a thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaceflight_osteopenia

"Astronauts lose an average of more than 1% bone mass per month spent in space... Since Gemini, exercise has been tried as a way of preventing bone loss, but it has not been shown to be successful."

 

[Stoked]

Not just psychological. Last time I looked into this, there was an immense physical effect, namely the permanent loss of bone mass. (search) Yes, looks like it's still a thing: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spaceflight_osteopenia

"Astronauts lose an average of more than 1% bone mass per month spent in space... Since Gemini, exercise has been tried as a way of preventing bone loss, but it has not been shown to be successful."

I wonder if they have looked into artificial gravity along with exercise.

 

[Siro]

Those earth orbiting things are pretty cool. Those are the stations they live in at the end of interstellar, right? I see a few problems with those things, like water and oxygen levels, as well as protection from debris. They are incredibly fascinating. The website siro linked said they estimate they could support ten trillion people! That's insane! Basically that would be limitless. It would change the entire view of life.

Oxygen and water levels are not a problem. An atmosphere would be constructed from asteroid materials. They are full of water, and that's where oxygen would come from. Once a biosphere is established, it will be a semi-closed system, like on Earth, and the compounds would be recycled by life. Any shortfalls can be made up by mining materials elsewhere. From a practical perspective, there is an infinite amount of stuff out there to be used.

Protection from impact will be done by building a telescope monitoring network around the orbital, with appropriate defenses ready to go once a threat is detected. We should have one of those around Earth by the way. That's another project with more worthwhile goals than Mars colonization.

You would still have impact from micrometeorites now and again, but that's not really a significant threat. You'll have repair systems to fix any damage.

 

[Siro]

Just want to chime in a little.

I think Mars is extremely important in the development of humanity as a space going species. Short term the benefits might be small. But one major advantage I see to having a permanent human presence on Mars is that Mars is its own planet. Harvesting asteroids is an endeavor tied to Earth. The asteroid miners will not develop an individual identity separate from the people of Earth. I think, over time, Martian society can do for humanity what European settlement in the Americas did. It's a new world. One not tied to the old ideas and old modes of thinking. We (Earthlings) will eventually learn a lot about ourselves by seeing what Martians make of their opportunity in a completely new world.

Just like Stoked said, you have to crawl before you can walk and you have to walk before you can run. Mars is a stepping stone to a new age of space exploration. You can dismiss it as a romantic notion or you can try to understand the pull that romantic notions have on people.

The biggest difference between having people on Mars and mining asteroids is that Mars can ultimately become humanities second home. Asteroid mines cannot.

I also think that you have somewhat overestimated the difficulties, which I find odd. I know you are an admirer of humanity but yet you seem to think we won't find solutions to the problems you've outlined?

I have already responded to all of that. Mars colonization is small-thinking. Humanity's survival would not depend on it in any way or shape, given the limitations of the planet. It is small, it has low gravity, it is mineral poor, it would require complete reshaping. It is a challenge not worth taking at this moment in history, with little existential benefit in the short or long term.

Mining asteroids doesn't simply have the amazing benefit of freeing us from scarcity and transforming the human condition (I'll take that billion out of billion times over a romantic Mars colony), but it would help us establish the infrastructure for unlimited expansion into space.

Listen, I have no say in the matter. I am just stating my case. If I did have a say, then I would very much oppose the economic burden of, what I consider, a useless long-term project.

 

[Siro]

First off I hope you're not taking offense when I disagree with you. It seems like you might be lately?

Second, Bold is a gross exageration of what I argued. I only argued prudence was logical from an individual standpoint and that pesticides are generally bad for you.

Back on subject: "Millenia for the environment to settle" is a mischaracterization of the process. If we do this we aren't just going to throw asteroids at the planet willy nilly. We will carefully select appropriate asteroids and put them on a trajectory to burn up in the atmosphere. We will warm it just enough and continually improve the environment overtime. Think shooting stars not KT extinction event. We won't live in a non-native environ, the settlers that make that decision will.

We won't have to re-engineer people! Mars colonists will not be returning to earth so any loss of bone density and muscle mass is just adaptation to the environment. Russian cosmonaut ,Gennady Padalka, who is the current commander of the International Space Station, has now been in orbit for more than 804 days across five missions. <That's weightlessness not 38% Earth gravity, like Mars has, and he has to come back to earth gravity. We can go to mars and back and be ok. We could go to mars to stay and be ok without re-engineering people. Low gravity adapted people(takes a long time to change so much to make return to earth impossible) may not be able to return to earth without assistance/innovative new "repairs", but that's ok. Again, we won't have to re-engineer people but even if we did we likely would have advanced far enough to re-engineer them back. The problem with adapting to low gravity environment is only the return to earth. Something that is not necessary for Martians to do.

The only advantage to the Orbital station you linked is proximity to earth. Mars beats them out in every other way namely the all important resources. Mars has everything a society needs in scales of magnitudes greater than an orbital colony could ever achieve. It would be easier to send your "self-replicating robots" to Mars and let them build a colony on martian soil.

I'll end on a few points I think we may agree on.

1)We need to develop a mission with international partners including Russia that is not subject to nuclear treaties. We could with today's technology send a probe to Proxima Centauri(the nearest star to us, besides Sol smart ***) that would reach the system within the century. That's a time span that I have some hope of living to see and my children would have a high probability of seeing.

2)Human re-engineering is a good thing. We aren't focusing on it enough, imo. It is the most exciting and trans-formative advancement that humans have ever and may ever accomplish. It also changes the calculus dramatically. You may not care what the human race will be doing next millennia but if you believed you and your children may still be around in a millennia you would.

The ONLY advantage of a space station is proximity to Earth? No. The advantage is unlimited potential to house as many people in as many ways as we want for the entire history of the universe. It is a little more than "proximity to Earth".

Human re-engineering is a good thing if it empowers us, not if it makes us less adapted to the environment where most humans live, and have evolved to live. And I don't think re-engineering people back and forth is a simple, or straight forward matter, if it's even possible to that extent at all. And for what? For nothing!

Much else of what you said is wrong. A space colony has infinite potential. We can even convert Mars to useful materials if we wished. And then use it to construct the environment we want. We already know that low gravity is terrible for you, so I'm not going to bother with that point. I am not interested in a plan where humans can't go back and forth because of difficulties in travel/adaptation since that is working to limit the species. Building in space is much easier than building on a planet that requires converting. Just like how building on a vacant lot is a lot easier than demolishing a skyscraper before you can build a house. In addition, the space infrastructure would enable humans to do a lot more, and expand a lot further, than an irrelevant Martian infrastructure. And I'm not going to address every point, because I already did in one way or another earlier.

And I am not offended. I have come to count on hearing your disagreements every time I make a post.

 

[Stoked]

Honestly I think all of it is in our future. Colonies on planets, space stations, asteroid mining, military outpost, research stations.

We are arguing what we want first but it will all happen eventually.

 

[Siro]

I wonder if they have looked into artificial gravity along with exercise.

We can barely get things into space is the problem. If we had a way to construct things IN SPACE, then building spinning space stations would be a fairly easy matter. That would eliminate the problems with gravity deprivation.

 

[Siro]

Honestly I think all of it is in our future. Colonies on planets, space stations, asteroid mining, military outpost, research stations.

We are arguing what we want first but it will all happen eventually.

Sure. I'm only talking about what we should be focusing on now. A project that would benefit the species more than anything in its history, or a practically useless symbolic one?

 

[Gameface]

We can barely get things into space is the problem. If we had a way to construct things IN SPACE, then building spinning space stations would be a fairly easy matter. That would eliminate the problems with gravity deprivation.

I'm getting a chuckle out of how big an issue you think low gravity is compared to mining asteroids and building human colonies on artificial structures. So do we send embryos up to populate these massive structures or do we still have to transport a bunch of people to live on them?

 

[Siro]

I'm getting a chuckle out of how big an issue you think low gravity is compared to mining asteroids and building human colonies on artificial structures. So do we send embryos up to populate these massive structures or do we still have to transport a bunch of people to live on them?

Mining asteroids and constructing orbitals is done by robots. I don't see the issue. Humans are the ones who have to live in low gravity on Mars. Once the structures are built, any human could inhabit them without the need for adaptation. And they are, initially, in Earth orbit. Given that space mining would give us infinite amount of fuel, getting people back and forth from the habitat is trivial.

 

[Stoked]

Sure. I'm only talking about what we should be focusing on now. A project that would benefit the species more than anything in its history, or a practically useless symbolic one?

This is where I disagree with you. A Mars colony would be far from useless. The could mine, do research on a huge array of topics. I actually think that a Mars colony has a wider set of benefits.

Asteroid mining gets us materials and the tech to do so. A colony opens research possibilities.

Either way I wouldn't mind which comes first. I just think that NASA is clearly making Mars a priority over asteroids.

 

[Siro]

This is where I disagree with you. A Mars colony would be far from useless. The could mine, do research on a huge array of topics. I actually think that a Mars colony has a wider set of benefits.

Asteroid mining gets us materials and the tech to do so. A colony opens research possibilities.

Either way I wouldn't mind which comes first. I just think that NASA is clearly making Mars a priority over asteroids.

But they mine in order to expand the useless colony.
And they research in order to find out what it takes to live on the colony.

These are not transferable benefits. And all practical research can be done with robots.

And I don't think NASA is focusing on Mars. It is a populist issue that gets them more attention, but the hope is sending a manned mission by mid-century. Not exactly the same as establishing a colony. We'll have a space mining industry by then. I am not worried about people making stupid decisions.

 

[Siro]

It is really hilarious that I'm getting heated over a planetary colonization vs. space habitats debate. I'm such a nerd.

 

[♪alt13]

The ONLY advantage of a space station is proximity to Earth? No. The advantage is unlimited potential to house as many people in as many ways as we want for the entire history of the universe. It is a little more than "proximity to Earth".

Human re-engineering is a good thing if it empowers us, not if it makes us less adapted to the environment where most humans live, and have evolved to live. And I don't think re-engineering people back and forth is a simple, or straight forward matter, if it's even possible to that extent at all. And for what? For nothing!

Much else of what you said is wrong. A space colony has infinite potential. We can even convert Mars to useful materials if we wished. And then use it to construct the environment we want. We already know that low gravity is terrible for you, so I'm not going to bother with that point. I am not interested in a plan where humans can't go back and forth because of difficulties in travel/adaptation since that is working to limit the species. Building in space is much easier than building on a planet that requires converting. Just like how building on a vacant lot is a lot easier than demolishing a skyscraper before you can build a house. In addition, the space infrastructure would enable humans to do a lot more, and expand a lot further, than an irrelevant Martian infrastructure. And I'm not going to address every point, because I already did in one way or another earlier.

And I am not offended. I have come to count on hearing your disagreements every time I make a post.

I have repped or liked way more of your posts than I have disagreed with. pfft

 

[Gameface]

Mining asteroids and constructing orbitals is done by robots. I don't see the issue. Humans are the ones who have to live in low gravity on Mars. Once the structures are built, any human could inhabit them without the need for adaptation. And they are, initially, in Earth orbit. Given that space mining would give us infinite amount of fuel, getting people back and forth from the habitat is trivial.

You're talking about technology that doesn't exist as though it's stupid easy. Are you aware of a design for a self replicating robot that works in space and can build a structure that can support a human colony?

You're also using our experiences with zero gravity as if it is exactly the same as 0.38 gravity, and that it would matter to someone who intended to spend the rest of their life at that gravity. Unless I'm unaware of low gravity studies, which is possible.

 

[Stoked]

But they mine in order to expand the useless colony.
And they research in order to find out what it takes to live on the colony.

These are not transferable benefits. And all practical research can be done with robots.

And I don't think NASA is focusing on Mars. It is a populist issue that gets them more attention, but the hope is sending a manned mission by mid-century. Not exactly the same as establishing a colony. We'll have a space mining industry by then. I am not worried about people making stupid decisions.

The materials harvested are transferable. So is the tech, it won't just be colony tech...

At this point a planetary colony and asteroid mining are both in the realm of achievable fantasy. We can get there but are not there.

As for NASA seeing Mars as a populist issue that gets them attention. Of course it is. It makes them relevant in the eyes of the public and brings in money and tech. That still makes Mars a focus.

A manned mission is not planned mid century. It is planed in the 2030s.

Is there even a time frame for asteroid mining? I did not see one after a brief google search.

 

[Siro]

You're talking about technology that doesn't exist as though it's stupid easy. Are you aware of a design for a self replicating robot that works in space and can build a structure that can support a human colony?

You're also using our experiences with zero gravity as if it is exactly the same as 0.38 gravity, and that it would matter to someone who intended to spend the rest of their life at that gravity. Unless I'm unaware of low gravity studies, which is possible.

Neither technology exists. Both are perfectly possible within foreseeable future. Robots already build other robots. We're just talking about expanding the automation. I'm not talking about microscopic Von Neumann replicators (Although that's also possible down the line).

Low gravity should have similar effects to zero gravity through the same mechanisms. Why wouldn't it? Your muscles atrophy in normal gravity if your level of activity drops by even a little bit. So your body wasting at half the rate is still not a desirable outcome. And like I've said several times, I consider the idea of colonists never being able to return to Earth to be a negative, given that far superior alternatives exist.

But hey, we're kind of getting somewhere. Your disagreement now seems to be with the existence of technology. That's easy to remedy. That's where the research should go, because if one thing is for sure, it is that current technologies can get better. And none of what I mentioned requires vast leaps in technical ability. Keep in mind that this is a gradual process. First you build simple mining robots to get material into orbit (already being worked on). Then you use the material to build orbital factories. Then you use the factories to build more robots. Then you build small habitats that can support a few dozen people. And so on. It is a clearer path to expansion than a dead-end Mars colony, and there is no requirement of self-replication any time soon.

 

[Stoked]

Honestly I see no reason why both cannot happen at relatively the same time. Much of the tech is transferable between the two.

Go Mars to get the population into space exploration and use asteroid mining to get corporations into space exploration.

But your terms "useless", "dead end"... about a Mars colony seem extremely short sighted and surprise me to be honest.

 

[b_line]

To me, asteroid mining is the most interesting new thing I have been introduced to in quite some time. I have had a complete paradigm shift in the last 12 hours after reading the website about Low earth orbit habitats that Siro posted.

Seriously, if you can not imagine that the space colonies are better than Mars colonies, you are not grasping the entire concept. It's a pretty fantastical idea, sure, but it is far more accessible than terraforming a planet that is inhospitable, and will take thousands of years to inhabit.

The idea of space colonies is pretty much infinite. They could potentially house trillions of people. That is just insane. Whereas a colony on Mars could potentially support maybe 1 billion people, we could have space colonies all throughout the solar system and house an infinite human race.