Human mission to Mars by 2024 ?

[BAYLOR]

It's mostly the gravity not the magnetic field that holds the atmosphere though both contribute and it's the lack of magnetic field that exposes the surface to radiation. But you are just posing problems that we can't easily fix with current tech. Maybe in the future Earth will be so wasted that people on Mars wouldn't want to come back here. Maybe genetics or nano tech will find ways around the radiation and the bone/muscle issues.

The point is never say never when it comes to technology.

I so wish we could make Mars live again with an atmosphere , oceans, rivers, streams , lakes and ponds all with fish another aquatic creatures and green forests and fields with animals and seasons like spring , summer fall and winter. Yes. perhaps an imaginary vision of Mars and one sparked by a bit in a chapter in Ray Bradbury's The Martian Chronicles. If only, if only .

 

[Vertigo]

You are correct. Musk was already given $3 billion to develop the platform for Moon and Mars. He has almost exhausted these funds and the result is abject failure. This is certainly part of the reason he was so keen to place himself at the heart of government; to keep the billions flowing. Meanwhile, his Department of Government Efficiency (childishly named 'Doge' - you know (giggles) like the scam crypto coin - will attempt to starve deserving departments of funds.

I wouldn't necessarily say abject failure (and I'm no lover of Musk). He probably has the most effective private heavy lifting launch system around today. But whether it's worth the money spent on it is a matter for others better qualified than me to judge. However I'm not promoting or endorsing Musk. Merely stating that it has already been considered that a permanent base on the moon would be the first step.

My personal opinion: there will eventually be at least a permanent base on Mars but whether it will be in my lifetime or indeed the lifetime of anyone reading these pages today is far less certain.

 

[Christine Wheelwright]

I wouldn't necessarily say abject failure....

I think its possible to say that while being fairly objective. I mean; suppose Musk promises a "Cybertruck", says it will be delivered "next year", that it will cost $40K and range will be 500 miles. Then it is delivered many years late, costs $100K and you are lucky to get half the promised range. People might still like to buy one, so maybe success is a subjective judgement. However, when it comes to delivering a platform to take man to Mars, well that's a pretty clear specification. Musk can point to the chopsticks all he likes, but his customer is likely to ask about the Mars part, or at least the Moon part. Unless, of course, he becomes his own customer. Better make sure Trump doesn't get tired of you, Elon!

 

[paranoid marvin]

I'm also not a fan of Musk, but I think that for whoever is/was in charge, there will be much failure (and money spent) before success is achieved. Forget millions and billions, it's could be trillions - or more.

Of course the real cost will be in lives lost. With the first mission that ends in death - and that's when and not if - the question will be asked 'Is it really worth it?" For the answer, we only have to consider all those who have lost their lives in pursuit of space exploration and say, 'They thought so'.

 

[Brian G Turner]

Musk

Just a friendly reminder to focus on the science aspect of the topic, not to stray into discussion of personalities, thanks. After all, we've managed lots of discussion about the James Webb Space Telescope without actually critiquing the man it was named after.

 

[CupofJoe]

Human settlement of Mars isn’t as far off as you might think

Could humans expand out beyond their homeworld and establish settlements on the planet Mars? The idea of settling the red planet has been around for decades. However, it has been seen by sceptics as a…

theconversation.com

 

[Vertigo]

Human settlement of Mars isn’t as far off as you might think

Could humans expand out beyond their homeworld and establish settlements on the planet Mars? The idea of settling the red planet has been around for decades. However, it has been seen by sceptics as a…

theconversation.com

I think the article makes some good points but conveniently ignores some. For example the compare the journey time to time spent on the ISS. It is true that individuals have spent longer on the ISS than the journey time to Mars would take, but omits to mention the minor fact that the ISS is very well protected from radiation by the Earth's magnetic field. This would not be the case for a journey to Mars. Not insurmountable but it does mean the comparison is rather less valid than indicated by that article. In fairness the radiation issue on the journey does get a mention towards the end of the article.

That said I believe we can and will find solutions to problems like this but they shouldn't be underestimated.

 

[Robert Zwilling]

The Chinese are going to the Moon no matter what it takes as they have or will get whatever is needed. If they get there first, they will have to solve the problems of how to live their. They have publicly stated that they look forward to everyone sharing their technological know how in navigating space and staying up there. To me that means they have no concerns about using other people's discoveries, its not a matter of who does it first, its a matter of being successful.

One thing is certain, if only one country is tramping around on the Moon, the other countries will not be satisfied letting someone else tell them what it is like. Plus, the more groups that are working on the Lunar occupation problem, the sooner it will become feasible. A supply line is definitely needed before settlements are built.

Musk is building a successful space cargo fleet and will be only too happy to charge people to ship things to the Moon. Pregnancies are easily handled, if it happens you don't stay on the Moon, its back to Earth immediately. I'm sure people would like to build mansions on the surface of the Moon but we don't even know if 3D printing machines will work in low gravity. More likely it will be living underground where the shielding from radiation is automatic. Perhaps digging machines would work or finding lava tubes will be easy. If there is a need to see the surface, narrow towers could be built with proper shielding that are connected to underground facilities.

 

[paranoid marvin]

A 'space race' is precisely what is needed to make this a reality. Will any of the superpowers be happy watching their rivals start to build structures on the Moon, claiming territory and materials for themselves? No.

I suspect that Musk will be whispering in Trump's ear that they can't allow China/Russia/India/Japan/whoever to get too far ahead of them. When national pride is at stake, the coffers will open ever wider - as they did with JFK in the 60s.

 

[Toby Frost]

Musk is building a successful

I wouldn't trust him to build a successful Lego set.

Besides, why would anyone want to live on the Moon or Mars? They're miserable places, and life on a planet run by billionaires and tyrants, millions of miles from any jurisdiction, sounds suspiciously like slave labour. Even in its current wretched state, Earth is a thousand times nicer than either planet. No offence meant to anyone, but all these stories about living on other planets sound like gee-whiz 1950s sci-fi. It feels like pie in the sky to me.

 

[Mon0Zer0]

I don't really know why we're stressing the need for humans on mars at this stage. Why not send humanoid robots first to start building habitats, setting up the infrastructure for a manned mission?

 

[-K2-]

This has likely already been touched on (I didn't read the whole thread), yet as to Mars, I watched a wonderful documentary that explained why Mars is what it is, and cannot be repaired. In a nutshell, it was all about gravity and the related magnetic fields generated by the core and its motion. They speculated that billions of years ago, Earth and Mars may have had similar properties, yet because Mars lacked key elements (that Earth had or gained via meteors and the like), a moon as influential as our own, its core's makeup was just different enough that it didn't perpetually flow like ours, slowed and died. Without gravity's pull, whatever atmosphere it had was lost, and without the protective affects of a magnetic shield it is cosmically pummeled.

In other words, how it is today will be how it remains or worse, and we can't change it, contrary to the fun sci-fi stories and movies.

If either the Moon or Mars were colonized, due to what is required to survive there and maintain that, they would have to be run like either the military or totalitarian states. You can't invest in someone who today decides they don't want to do their part since every cog in that machine must work. Rare elements might be worth mining, one day, yet they would have to be something exceptional, rare, or unavailable on earth on Earth to justify the cost. I've read ideas like using them as refueling or resupply depots, yet then you have to get either there and get them to -passing- ships; if they slow down and have to rebuild speed, it defeats the purpose.

About the only practical use that I can envision is for astronomy (or whatever you call exploring the cosmos from afar).

Past that, all I imagine they're good for is for whomever to say, "I did it."

K2

 

[Mon0Zer0]

Besides, why would anyone want to live on the Moon or Mars?

Exomining, off-world energy and goods production. Long term studies of planets. Setting the stage for humans to become an interplanetary species. Discovery. Adventure.

They're miserable places, and life on a planet run by billionaires and tyrants, millions of miles from any jurisdiction, sounds suspiciously like slave labour. Even in its current wretched state, Earth is a thousand times nicer than either planet. No offence meant to anyone, but all these stories about living on other planets sound like gee-whiz 1950s sci-fi. It feels like pie in the sky to me.

1. People already live in miserable, inhospitable places on earth, now - those in the far north, those in the desert, those in malaria infested jungles, those on oilrigs - environments that although habitable are still extremely hostile to human life.

2. Society doesn't have to be as it is now, nor does space exploration or even colonisation have to be structured the way you suggest. It can be conducted for the good of all, even if Musk is the opposite of an altruistic philanthropist.

3. Glass half-empty cynicism can as bad as gee-whiz sci fi. People predicted all kinds of awfulness for 2024 and none of it has come to pass as envisaged. The new whaddyacallit - paradigm - has positives and negatives of its own and the future will no doubt be the same but different. We can at least try for these things and maybe, like the space race of the 60's, great technological boons will fall out that can help us all even if we don't achieve man on mars.

 

[Mon0Zer0]

This has likely already been touched on (I didn't read the whole thread), yet as to Mars, I watched a wonderful documentary that explained why Mars is what it is, and cannot be repaired. In a nutshell, it was all about gravity and the related magnetic fields generated by the core and its motion. They speculated that billions of years ago, Earth and Mars may have had similar properties, yet because Mars lacked key elements (that Earth had or gained via meteors and the like), a moon as influential as our own, its core's makeup was just different enough that it didn't perpetually flow like ours, slowed and died. Without gravity's pull, whatever atmosphere it had was lost, and without the protective affects of a magnetic shield it is cosmically pummeled.

In other words, how it is today will be how it remains or worse, and we can't change it, contrary to the fun sci-fi stories and movies.

People have looked into that - while we can't give it another magnetic shield they have mooted the possibility of creating a floating shield at the L1 Lagrange point that would redirect the cosmic pummelling.

Or this from Vision 2050: NASA Astrobiology

 

[Robert Zwilling]

I'm not basing success on profit and loss. SpaceX has made 39 flights to the space station. They have flown 15 crewed mission. Some cargo flights are uncrewed. Since 2008 they have flown a total number of 423 flights for NASA, private companies, and their own business, such as launching starlink satellites. SpaceX might not be the first company to establish a lunar base but they will be the ones transporting cargo and probably people back and forth. Steamship lines brought people everywhere but they didn't set up colonies everywhere they stopped. The Chinese are planning on sending the people and supplies for their lunar mission to their space station firsts, use that as a base station for going to the Moon and getting back to Earth again. The timeline for the International Space Station puts it demise around the same time missions are supposed to be going to the Moon. Perhaps the uncertainty of the situation has Musk sitting on the sidelines until he knows how things are going to work out. Using other peoples money is always the cheapest way to get things done.

 

[Venusian Broon]

Exomining, off-world energy and goods production. Long term studies of planets. Setting the stage for humans to become an interplanetary species. Discovery. Adventure.

This I agree with as my SF, science and 'what's over there where the sun sets' side of me loves it. However another part of me thinks...

...where the funds to kickstart this grand adventure will actually come from, or what amazing out of the blue technologies make it much more cost effective, I don't know. Right now neither funds nor technology is up to scratch. The world today would have to invest a huge part of its wealth to do this....I'm not saying that everything is economic but if you destroy the world's economy just to get a small colony on Mars (that will fail because Earth won't be able to supply it with anything anyway if it's going through disruption....) then that's just not going to happen.

Sure landing a team of astronauts or taikonaut for a one-shot is probably in our grasp (and probably cheap enough!) and would be be highly impressive and, like the moon-landings of 1969, a milestone in humanities history. But it'll be a one-shot that does not stand replication easily.

1. People already live in miserable, inhospitable places on earth, now - those in the far north, those in the desert, those in malaria infested jungles, those on oilrigs - environments that although habitable are still extremely hostile to human life.

The environments you mention do have people living in them. Are they miserable? Probably not, otherwise they'd be empty. Oil rigs are closest to space travel, but then it's all for a pay packet, getting something out of the ground and you know you are only a helicopter ride back to the mainland. Try replicating that in deep space beyond the moon orbit. Nope, not the same.

Also calling these places 'extremely hostile' to human life is a bit too much IMO. These places all have atmospheres with oxygen, shielding from solar and cosmic radiation, temperatures that are easily dealt with, and a thriving biosphere. Places that don't have that i.e. Mars, Moon - yeah that's a bit more 'extreme' in my book.

2. Society doesn't have to be as it is now.... It can be conducted for the good of all,

Oh you sweet spring child! Well, we need our optimists as well as our pessimists, I suppose. Give us a well-thought out path to get to a society for the good of all and I'll join you. I'm just looking at about 5000 years of human history and I am not totally convinced!

3. Glass half-empty cynicism can as bad as gee-whiz sci fi. People predicted all kinds of awfulness for 2024 and none of it has come to pass as envisaged. The new whaddyacallit - paradigm - has positives and negatives of its own and the future will no doubt be the same but different. We can at least try for these things and maybe, like the space race of the 60's, great technological boons will fall out that can help us all even if we don't achieve man on mars.

No idea what all kinds of awfulness were predicted for 2024. Personally I did not hear of any. Nothing either good or bad comes to pass as envisaged anyway so I don't like this sort of argument.

The space race of the 1960s was not a great technological boom. It was exciting. But, for example, one real boom that changed the world - the advent of solid state computing and its subsequent explosion that continues to this day - was happening and would have still continued as it had if the US went to the Moon or not.

At some point the economics/risks-reward/"technological ease" will (hopefully) reach a point where it starts to make sense. Although I would still think we ignore Mars and focus on building bigger and better O'Neil cylinders and all sorts of much better space habitats (that we can then send as spacecraft to all sorts of places around the Solar System - why not take home with you when exploring, rather than trying to make a home in some frozen moon billions of miles away from help?)

 

[Mon0Zer0]

This I agree with as my SF, science and 'what's over there where the sun sets' side of me loves it. However another part of me thinks...

...where the funds to kickstart this grand adventure will actually come from, or what amazing out of the blue technologies make it much more cost effective, I don't know. Right now neither funds nor technology is up to scratch. The world today would have to invest a huge part of its wealth to do this....I'm not saying that everything is economic but if you destroy the world's economy just to get a small colony on Mars (that will fail because Earth won't be able to supply it with anything anyway if it's going through disruption....) then that's just not going to happen.

Like Musk or not, his vision of going to mars has lead to the development of reusable rockets and other huge breakthroughs. His marketing nous and patronage has lead to some serious advancement that makes it more credible (if not realistic within the timescales he promised).

The environments you mention do have people living in them. Are they miserable? Probably not, otherwise they'd be empty.

Maybe underestimating people's resilience? There's nothing that says living on mars will be miserable, either. No more miserable day to day than living on the ISS but granted with an even slimmer chance of survival should something go catastrophically wrong.

Oil rigs are closest to space travel, but then it's all for a pay packet, getting something out of the ground and you know you are only a helicopter ride back to the mainland. Try replicating that in deep space beyond the moon orbit. Nope, not the same.

I didn't say they were directly comparable environments but they are hostile to human life - humans have to innovate in order to survive in them - it's not living in a mildish country with a suitable country and widely available edible plants and animals. Obviously living on Mars would require orders of magnitude more ingenuity to survive and absolutely require technology.

No idea what all kinds of awfulness were predicted for 2024. Personally I did not hear of any. Nothing either good or bad comes to pass as envisaged anyway so I don't like this sort of argument.

Not specifically for 2024 but the history of visions of the future is littered with way-off-the-mark scenarios. Soylent green isn't people, Max isn't Mad, Tyrell isn't building replicants in a post nuclear Los Angeles, The boy's dog isn't telepathic yadda yadda,

The space race of the 1960s was not a great technological boom. It was exciting. But, for example, one real boom that changed the world - the advent of solid state computing and its subsequent explosion that continues to this day - was happening and would have still continued as it had if the US went to the Moon or not.

20 Inventions We Wouldn't Have Without Space Travel

NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, the leading center for robotic exploration of the solar system.

www.jpl.nasa.gov

I think Brian Cox mentioned once that the economic effect of the space race was enormous and lead to huge innovations in areas we wouldn't believe. Iirc it produced something like greater than 20x return on investment from the economic activity generated. Ultimately it's an investment in technology that has other applications, is highly efficient etc.

At some point the economics/risks-reward/"technological ease" will (hopefully) reach a point where it starts to make sense. Although I would still think we ignore Mars and focus on building bigger and better O'Neil cylinders and all sorts of much better space habitats (that we can then send as spacecraft to all sorts of places around the Solar System - why not take home with you when exploring, rather than trying to make a home in some frozen moon billions of miles away from help?)

I'm with you there in terms of pragmatism, but shoot for mars, hit the moon and all that.

 

[paranoid marvin]

The mechanics involved in rocket science will inevitably lead to many, many failures. But when they succeed; yours is the future my son, and everything in it.

Innovation in space travel today is the equivalent of rail travel in the 19th Century; it's waiting to explode. And when it does, it will be big business. The biggest business you ever saw. And those in at the ground level will be the ones to gain the most.

 

[Venusian Broon]

Like Musk or not, his vision of going to mars has lead to the development of reusable rockets and other huge breakthroughs. His marketing nous and patronage has lead to some serious advancement that makes it more credible (if not realistic within the timescales he promised).

Mmm...The tech his company (not Musk) has utilised came from other sources, so in my mind no biggy. This was stuff that could have been with us in the late 1990s if things had gone the right way.

But, if I am being fair, the big positives that came from Musk are from the economic side (starting to get repetitive, I know...). They took risks to develop - pushing research cycles much faster than any government agency. They also pushed ways to make rockets out of cheaper materials etc.. And they've really developed a great engineering culture for success there. I've only mentioned a few at the top of my mind; lots of different angles that made it a success.


However, I'm not sure if he's really that focused on deep space if he can't get a hefty check from NASA. Much easier making loads of bucks by making Kessler syndrome in low Earth orbit instead with Starlink. Although he might surprise me in the future.

Maybe underestimating people's resilience? There's nothing that says living on mars will be miserable, either. No more miserable day to day than living on the ISS but granted with an even slimmer chance of survival should something go catastrophically wrong.

I didn't say anything about Mars being miserable. You're referring back to another person I think. I was just taking umbrage at you calling these places "extremely hostile". If paleolithic people found ways of living in desert extremes, Siberian steppes or deep in jungles and their descendants continue to this day, it's not extreme in my book. (Okay those scientists in Antarctica, that's more of Mars-like place, so that's extremely hostile)

20 Inventions We Wouldn't Have Without Space Travel

NASA's Jet Propulsion Laboratory, the leading center for robotic exploration of the solar system.

www.jpl.nasa.gov

I think Brian Cox mentioned once that the economic effect of the space race was enormous and lead to huge innovations in areas we wouldn't believe. Iirc it produced something like greater than 20x return on investment from the economic activity generated. Ultimately it's an investment in technology that has other applications, is highly efficient etc.

Sorry, I have a PhD in Physics so you'll have to do better than a quick google and a Brian Cox quote. I had a quick skim through the link. I wasn't impressed.

Look, I'm not saying it didn't produce a return, baby food, teflon coated frying pans etc... I'm just not sure you could prove that it was 'highly efficient' or was better than other science and tech investments.

Better for the human psyche and hopes perhaps. Till everyone got mostly bored with it after a few years.

I'm with you there in terms of pragmatism, but shoot for mars, hit the moon and all that.

If we shoot for Alpha Centauri, then all this Mars and Moon crap will be easy. I'd prefer that.

 

[paranoid marvin]

Antarctica is hostile; space and other planets are many, many more times worse. People born into hostile environments have parents that live and survive there, proving that - whilst dificult - the conditions are not insurmountable.

Space is another proposition altogether. No-one has lived there, no-one can live there without lots of protective equipment. Equipment that can be compromised by an errant piece of space debris, and no help is forthcoming.

If a Mars mission develops complications in the first 96 hours, nothing can be done to assist for another 3 YEARS, meaning that the crew are essentially on their own to deal with the problem or die in the attempt.

The likelihood of a 3 year space mission to Mars having no problems appears remote - almost non-existant. The condition of said astronauts after 3 years of space travel are underteminable, but safe to say that they won't be in the rudest of health - physically or mentally.

Man will go to the Moon again before the end of this decade. Before the end of the half century we will have some kind of permanent fixture on the surface. And before the end of the century, a manned flight to Mars will have been attempted.

As a species, we are driven to surmount any obstacle put in front of us. That is both our virtue and our flaw. We choose to do the hard - the seemingly impossible - things; not because they are easy, but because they are hard. We have scaled the highest heights, and plumbed the deepest depths. We have conquered the seven seas, and made habitable the most unhospitable places on our planet.

They help prove our worth, and our position as the dominant life form on our planet. They help us feel better about all the bad things we do to our planet, and to the other inhabitants we share it with.