Human mission to Mars by 2024 ?

Christine Wheelwright said:

Well yes, all of that and more. But surely it's not up to us to point out the difficulties. Surely it's up to the folks who claim they can do it (I've been warned about mentioning names) to explain how it will be done. And I mean properly; not just on a stage in front of fanboys fantasizing about a theatre and table tennis tables for the journey.
As well as all the engineering and physics, I can't resist speculating about the human factor. How can someone certifiably insane enough to sign up for certain death be stable enough for a major space mission? Unless the argument is that space travel won't make them mad if they are already crazy before departure.

Click to expand...

To be fair, the same could have been said of long distance sail travel 500 years ago or getting to the poles. The same was also true of the first Moon landing.

WIth 1960s technology, how could they send a craft to the Moon, land it, then take off and come back home? Even now, with massive improvements in technology and a much greater understanding of space, it is far from easy.

The answer is that some incredibly brave (some would say foolhardy) pioneers will lead the way. It will take resilience and determination that failures, resulting in inevitable deaths, will not be a deterrance from continuing.

The technology is relatively simple. With the massive leap forward in computer technology, a rocket travelling to Mars and back is much simpler than it was with the Moon landings 60 years ago. It's all a case of incredibly complex mathematics.

Once away from Earth's gravity, the actual size of the spacecraft is largely irrelevant. Whether it is a small probe, or a large craft capable of carrying several humans shouldn't really affect the likelihood of success. If we can send a probe to Mars with a high degree of confidence that it will get there, then a larger craft should be no different.

And with today's technology, those astronauts travelling (thereotically) should have nothing to do. The onboard computer systems and (inevitable) AI should tbe able to take care of everything. The humans shoukd only need to get involved if there is a malfunction.

So the most important issue is keeping several people alive, both physically and mentally healthy for 3 or more years. That is the challenge. Could we build an ISS, but 2 or 3 times the size? One that is capable of sustaining life for several people for several years? Yes, it is theoretically possible. Could such a structure in space have propulsion systems capable of travelling to Mars - or beyond? There is no reason to say that theoretically that could not be the case.

Could a spacecraft 5 times the size of the Space Shuttle be constructed (probably assembled in space) and flown to another planet? One large enough to house several astronauts with several years supply of water and food? Yes, it is possible.

But it's all incredibly dangerous. Just as it was for those who first scaled Everest without supplementary oxygen, or any idea of the hazards ahead. For those who attempted the poles. Or those who first set sail in boats to travel to seek out new shipping routes.

We do not fully comprehend the dangers and challenges ahead. And we will continue to do so until we attempt it. Properly attempt it.

As Christine points out, we need to see more of a plan of action than just someone standing on a stage and saying we can. To believe it is possible, we need to see designs of the spacecraft capable of sustaining and protecting the lives of those abroad. When we are still unwillingly to risk the lives of astronauts travelling to the Moon, how can we say that we will send them many, many times that distance?

I do think that we have the technology to go to the Moon, and to build a craft capable of taking humsns to Mars. It's all theoretically possible. What we lack is the will to do so, and the resilience to see it through to ultimate success.

But not from people prepared to risk their lives in the attempt. Sailors and explorers, test pilots and extreme sports men and women (as a few examples) have - and always will be - prepared to put their lives on the line.

Christine Wheelwright said:

As well as all the engineering and physics, I can't resist speculating about the human factor. How can someone certifiably insane enough to sign up for certain death be stable enough for a major space mission? Unless the argument is that space travel won't make them mad if they are already crazy before departure.

Click to expand...

Despite the compelling Ren and Stimpy episode, I really don't think it is that hard to find people who are both stable enough to live in small place for a long time, and are willing to take extreme risks for the honor/excitement/adventure of doing so. People on earth have jobs that are worse.

In tbe past, the individuals who proposed these dificult/near suicidal tasks would stake their own lives in the same venture. Scott, Shackleton, Hillary and Norgay, Drake, Columbus etc. succeeded or died in the attempt along with those they led.

Nowadays with corporations and all of the lawyers and litigations that entails, and also the incredibly large amounts of money that space travel requires, the problems are much different than they were a couple of centuries ago when you could just stock a ship, hire a crew and set sail.

It's red tape that is the biggest hindrance in sending man to the Red Planet.

I actually think that getting a volunteer will be really easy. Just think of all the causes and people, many of them vastly stupider than going to Mars, that people become fanatically devoted to. And if it works, you're set up for life.

I'm not sure how much I can say about red tape, but you have to be very, very careful about who gets to cut it. It's one thing to make a system more effective and another to hack it to pieces in the name of efficiency. And there are powerful people these days who really get off on the hacking.

I worry that "Yay, space!" blinds people to the moral implications of all of this. I think a useful question is "What will you allow to happen to the world so long as men land on Mars?" To my mind, the issue needs less Heinlein and Asimov and more Orwell and Atwood.

Toby Frost said:

I actually think that getting a volunteer will be really easy. Just think of all the causes and people, many of them vastly stupider than going to Mars, that people become fanatically devoted to. And if it works, you're set up for life.

Click to expand...

What about someone with a spinal injury (paraplegic or quadriplegic) or someone who has lost limbs (maybe ex-services, maybe even a former pilot) who still has full mental capacity. The latter is better because the might be fitter, and for space travel, legs themselves are just an impedance (after a 3-6 month space flight, muscle mass is diminished by up to 30%) but the blood still pools there. If someone is bed-laden or has severely restricted movement on Earth, they get something stimulating and useful to do, where in the low gravity of space, they actual have advantages over other people, and they get free medical care too.

John McFall, a Paralympic medallist, has been working with the European Space Agency (ESA). There was an article in Nature but it's behind a paywall. You can find Newspaper reports. He is a sprinter, a surgeon (Orthopaedic Registrar) but lost the lower part of his right leg in a motorcycle accident when he was 19. However, there has been some concern that his prosthetic leg might give off fumes, which might build up over time to become toxic in the recycled air.

As for the political considerations of a foreign national owning so much US space technology, that's really up to the US Government to sort out if it wishes to. The future of space exploration is by private companies and corporations (and it was always going to be) but business competition would allow you to choose where and to whom you spend your money with. There are antitrust laws and regulations that can be used to prevent the abuse of power, limit market power and increase competition. It's politics and we don't discuss the whys and wherefores here.

paranoid marvin said:

Nowadays with corporations and all of the lawyers and litigations that entails, and also the incredibly large amounts of money that space travel requires, the problems are much different than they were a couple of centuries ago when you could just stock a ship, hire a crew and set sail.

It's red tape that is the biggest hindrance in sending man to the Red Planet.

Click to expand...

Astronauts would be required to sign insurance waivers. As Toby said, there would still be a long queue to join up. It might be very dangerous, but exploration is also exciting, and that danger was always part of the appeal, just as it is in dangerous sports. They haven't yet stopped motor racing, Base jumping or cave diving.

Some danger through freak accidents must be accepted, some such as the pure Oxygen atmosphere of the Mercury capsule, should really have been predicted. You just need to draw a line somewhere. The Pyramids would never get built today. The Panama canal would take much longer and the budget would probably make it nigh impossible.

That kind of talk is quite popular across the entire spectrum of human endeavors, so why would space be any different. Since it is speculative and anyone can have an opinion its fun to come up with your own scenario on how it might work.

Dave said:

What about someone with a spinal injury (paraplegic or quadriplegic) or someone who has lost limbs (maybe ex-services, maybe even a former pilot) who still has full mental capacity. The latter is better because the might be fitter, and for space travel, legs themselves are just an impedance (after a 3-6 month space flight, muscle mass is diminished by up to 30%) but the blood still pools there. If someone is bed-laden or has severely restricted movement on Earth, they get something stimulating and useful to do, where in the low gravity of space, they actual have advantages over other people, and they get free medical care too.

John McFall, a Paralympic medallist, has been working with the European Space Agency (ESA). There was an article in Nature but it's behind a paywall. You can find Newspaper reports. He is a sprinter, a surgeon (Orthopaedic Registrar) but lost the lower part of his right leg in a motorcycle accident when he was 19. However, there has been some concern that his prosthetic leg might give off fumes, which might build up over time to become toxic in the recycled air.

As for the political considerations of a foreign national owning so much US space technology, that's really up to the US Government to sort out if it wishes to. The future of space exploration is by private companies and corporations (and it was always going to be) but business competition would allow you to choose where and to whom you spend your money with. There are antitrust laws and regulations that can be used to prevent the abuse of power, limit market power and increase competition. It's politics and we don't discuss the whys and wherefores here.


Astronauts would be required to sign insurance waivers. As Toby said, there would still be a long queue to join up. It might be very dangerous, but exploration is also exciting, and that danger was always part of the appeal, just as it is in dangerous sports. They haven't yet stopped motor racing, Base jumping or cave diving.

Some danger through freak accidents must be accepted, some such as the pure Oxygen atmosphere of the Mercury capsule, should really have been predicted. You just need to draw a line somewhere. The Pyramids would never get built today. The Panama canal would take much longer and the budget would probably make it nigh impossible.

Click to expand...

You can sign waivers, butit is all risked-based. Most jobs offer a high degree probability of survival; a trip to Mars does not. In fact it's close to suicidal, as things stand. Lawyers would run rings anyone signing a paper to disclaimer in that situation.

It's one thing for an adventurer to go off with a few mates to pursue a reckless venture; quite another for a company to ask of it from its employees.

paranoid marvin said:

Lawyers would run rings anyone signing a paper to disclaimer in that situation.

Click to expand...

Please choose from one or more of the following:

1) Kids are too soft these days
2) Health and safety brigade again
3) This PC stuff has gone too far
4) The world's gone maaaaaad!

paranoid marvin said:

You can sign waivers, butit is all risked-based. Most jobs offer a high degree probability of survival; a trip to Mars does not. In fact it's close to suicidal, as things stand. Lawyers would run rings anyone signing a paper to disclaimer in that situation.

It's one thing for an adventurer to go off with a few mates to pursue a reckless venture; quite another for a company to ask of it from its employees.

Click to expand...

What, exactly, is so deadly that no one is planning on addressing before the trip gets approved?

Forget about insurance. That is a disaster waiting to happen (except for (m)any lawyers involved in the aftermath.)

This is the plan:
Any contracted daredevil will receive a nice sum with at least seven eight zeros. However, initially the money will be kept on a secure account until further notice.
If
A. the daredevil survives the journey to Mars then s/he certainly deserves the money. Unfortunately there's not much on Mars to spend it on, so the money will stay where it is.
B. s/he therefor decides to return to Earth and miraculously also survives the trip home, it is most definitely deserved and the money will be transferred to the lucky b*star*. Mission accomplished, everybody happy.
C. disaster strikes and Starship crashes or disappears without a trace (during A or B), any surviving relative on Earth can hire as much lawyers as deemed necessary and claim the money. This process may take many years and outlive any survivor.

Meanwhile funds are available for the next attempt.

I had to sign a 5-page insurance waiver just to go axe-throwing. No one died and everyone came back again!

Thought exercises - I'm an astronaut who is fit and well, but I've just been given three years to live with an incurable disease. I'm divorced but have a large family to support, maintenance fees, medical debts and I lost a fortune in a Crypto currency deal. I love dangerous sports and I also crave being famous. (I'll go if I'm first to walk on Mars, but not second or left in the Command Module.)

That person probably wouldn't pass the psych-evaluation, but I'm sure there is someone out of 8 billion who would.