QuarkFly wrote:

=The desire to push boundaries and live in space is understandable, but people ignore the day-to-day realities and human nature...Mars would be a lousy place to live and work -- and after the novelty of getting there wears off, people will dislike it and want to leave. Humans first walked on the Moon almost 50 years ago...how many humans live there now? Same for Mars and other planets. They will stay devoid of permanent human settlement, Nobody wants to live, struggling to survive, on a boring dead planet for no good reason...

Why did humanity explore the ocean? Because it is what we do, explore and expand. We found land, and primitive peoples, and at first, nothing much actually worth the risk. Dangerous voyage, cold, death, starvation, hostile indigenous peoples. No profit. Just pride, being able to say they expanded their territory. And people kept going, knowing there was risk of not even making it there. No one wants to failure, but failure is always an option. No one is willing to risk in lives any more, but that is the one resource we have in an over abundance.

This is a world of bubble wrapped special snowflakes and old school corporations extracting money from the world to line the pockets of the ultra wealthy. Life is hard, and the millennials have never seen struggle. They got consultation prizes when they failed and protected when 'bullys' say mean things. Are we going to send safe spaces with them to Mars?

Then you have the corporations. Why innovate and make your product cheaper and more accessible when you can over engineer the same thing and extract more and more money from the government? ULA just dropped launch prices from $164M to under $100M because they have to compete now (so the last 70 launch contract cost an extra $4.5B). But SpaceX is already at $64M per launch... that is $100M less than ULA a few years ago. And when SpaceX can start regularly reusing rockets... should drop to around $42M. So it is very well within the US Governments interest to fund SpaceX. Even if you roll in the money he got from federal and state sources for all his ventures (about $4.9B), that is just the extra cream off the top for what ULA was charging. Even with the $64m per launch saved by ULA dropping prices, using SpaceX still saves the government $36M per launch. So for the US in the future, cost of launching satellites will have dropped 61%. Sounds like money well spent to me. And dont think that Boeing and Lockheed funded the development of the Delta V from their own pockets.

Musk dreams big, and has a good track record of making it happen. Have you looked at his phase 1 plan for tesla from 10 years ago? He posted it 10 years ago, and made it happen. He has phase 2 posted. He is not hiding anything, he just isnt playing by the old rules, and that is scary for old school people. People joke... oh Elon is out learning to dig holes... yeah so he can do it efficiently and in a cost effective manner so he can bury the hyperloop because going above ground would be too expensive. might cost more now, and there will be bumps, but in the future it will make things cheaper. He could contract out for batteries... or invest in his own, and sell batteries to everyone else.

Yes I am a fan of Musk, because he does things the way I want to. Dont do something that way because that is how it was always done... that kills innovation. Be creative, do things different, change the world for the better, make money. All those statements are 100% true.

Regarding the Mars climate:

https://phys.org/news/2017-03-nasa-magn ... phere.html

One of the more intriguing presentations took place on Wednesday, March 1st, where the exploration of Mars by human astronauts was discussed. In the course of the talk, which was titled "A Future Mars Environment for Science and Exploration", Director Jim Green discussed how deploying a magnetic shield could enhance Mars' atmosphere and facilitate crewed missions there in the future.

...

KarelXWB wrote:

Regarding the Mars climate:

https://phys.org/news/2017-03-nasa-magn ... phere.html

One of the more intriguing presentations took place on Wednesday, March 1st, where the exploration of Mars by human astronauts was discussed. In the course of the talk, which was titled "A Future Mars Environment for Science and Exploration", Director Jim Green discussed how deploying a magnetic shield could enhance Mars' atmosphere and facilitate crewed missions there in the future.

...

What kind of object/device could they use to deflect the solar wind? A medium sized asteroid or some kind of plasma-casting device?

You don't need an asteroid, you need a magnetic field. Power source + some kind of coil. Not sure exactly how large the coil has to be, the magnetic field can be larger than the physical object generating it.

The talk didn't include any details on how to do this, but it would be an interesting exercise to design one. Would also be useful if the earth for some reason decided to lose its natural magnetic field....

KarelXWB wrote:

Regarding the Mars climate:

https://phys.org/news/2017-03-nasa-magn ... phere.html

One of the more intriguing presentations took place on Wednesday, March 1st, where the exploration of Mars by human astronauts was discussed. In the course of the talk, which was titled "A Future Mars Environment for Science and Exploration", Director Jim Green discussed how deploying a magnetic shield could enhance Mars' atmosphere and facilitate crewed missions there in the future.

...

Interesting idea...but a bit late. The Mars atmosphere and oceans are are already gone. Some magnetic protection at Mars L1... "fanciful" is an understatement, inflatable Magnet(s) the size of a planet? -- Anyhow, will not bring back flowing water or air. As for radiation protection, would be much cheaper to just shield any shelter on Mars.

This isn't like Schwarzenegger in Total Recall...Mars can't be great again !!

Oroka wrote:

QuarkFly wrote:

=The desire to push boundaries and live in space is understandable, but people ignore the day-to-day realities and human nature...Mars would be a lousy place to live and work -- and after the novelty of getting there wears off, people will dislike it and want to leave. Humans first walked on the Moon almost 50 years ago...how many humans live there now? Same for Mars and other planets. They will stay devoid of permanent human settlement, Nobody wants to live, struggling to survive, on a boring dead planet for no good reason...

Why did humanity explore the ocean? Because it is what we do, explore and expand. We found land, and primitive peoples, and at first, nothing much actually worth the risk. Dangerous voyage, cold, death, starvation, hostile indigenous peoples. No profit. Just pride, being able to say they expanded their territory.

Uh, the prime driver of the exploration of our planet has basically always been profit - better lands to grow crops and live on, more land to sell to colonists and expand taxation on etc etc. Pretty much all of the famous explorers of the 14th, 15th and 16th centuries did it because their respective governments paid extremely well. Take Christopher Columbus for example:

In the April 1492 "Capitulations of Santa Fe", King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella promised Columbus that if he succeeded he would be given the rank of Admiral of the Ocean Sea and appointed Viceroy and Governor of all the new lands he could claim for Spain. He had the right to nominate three persons, from whom the sovereigns would choose one, for any office in the new lands. He would be entitled to 10 percent of all the revenues from the new lands in perpetuity. Additionally, he would also have the option of buying one-eighth interest in any commercial venture with the new lands and receive one-eighth of the profits.

Thats a *huge* agreement.

moo wrote:

Oroka wrote:

QuarkFly wrote:

=The desire to push boundaries and live in space is understandable, but people ignore the day-to-day realities and human nature...Mars would be a lousy place to live and work -- and after the novelty of getting there wears off, people will dislike it and want to leave. Humans first walked on the Moon almost 50 years ago...how many humans live there now? Same for Mars and other planets. They will stay devoid of permanent human settlement, Nobody wants to live, struggling to survive, on a boring dead planet for no good reason...

Why did humanity explore the ocean? Because it is what we do, explore and expand. We found land, and primitive peoples, and at first, nothing much actually worth the risk. Dangerous voyage, cold, death, starvation, hostile indigenous peoples. No profit. Just pride, being able to say they expanded their territory.

Uh, the prime driver of the exploration of our planet has basically always been profit - better lands to grow crops and live on, more land to sell to colonists and expand taxation on etc etc. Pretty much all of the famous explorers of the 14th, 15th and 16th centuries did it because their respective governments paid extremely well. Take Christopher Columbus for example:

In the April 1492 "Capitulations of Santa Fe", King Ferdinand and Queen Isabella promised Columbus that if he succeeded he would be given the rank of Admiral of the Ocean Sea and appointed Viceroy and Governor of all the new lands he could claim for Spain. He had the right to nominate three persons, from whom the sovereigns would choose one, for any office in the new lands. He would be entitled to 10 percent of all the revenues from the new lands in perpetuity. Additionally, he would also have the option of buying one-eighth interest in any commercial venture with the new lands and receive one-eighth of the profits.

Thats a *huge* agreement.

But Columbus took on a huge risk. There was no guearantee that "India" would be as close as it eventually was, that he and his ship would manage to endure the journey, that his crew would not riot in spite of an uncertaint future,... History books are filled with failures and deaths. Few people today would fly to mars or anywhere else for the mere promise of 10% profit share, even though the proper exploitation of resources may make you a billionaire.

One other point to consider: Much progress and many settlements were created by prisoners whose sentence was to be moved overseas or to serve in the navy. Young prisoners sentenced to life without parole may cost the taxpayer as much as $2 mio, whereas the death penalty can add up to over $3 mio per convict. Given the alternative of sending them to mars for $200.000 - $600.000 - the cost Elon Musk wants to achieve - it would seem a much easier solution. Whether prisoners would choose a free and self-dependent life on mars, including all necessary equipment, over a life-long imprisoning is debatable. It is also questionable if these convicts are sufficiently mentally stable to create a colony and start a new life by themselves.

mxaxai wrote:

But Columbus took on a huge risk. There was no guearantee that "India" would be as close as it eventually was, that he and his ship would manage to endure the journey, that his crew would not riot in spite of an uncertaint future,... History books are filled with failures and deaths. Few people today would fly to mars or anywhere else for the mere promise of 10% profit share, even though the proper exploitation of resources may make you a billionaire.

Your point is? He still did it with a massive motivational factor of a fantastic fortune. And if you could land on Mars, claim something the size of the continental United States and then sell farmsteads for the rest of your life to reap your 10%, thats a *hell* of a lot of money as well, and its exactly what Columbus was doing.

One other point to consider: Much progress and many settlements were created by prisoners whose sentence was to be moved overseas or to serve in the navy. Young prisoners sentenced to life without parole may cost the taxpayer as much as $2 mio, whereas the death penalty can add up to over $3 mio per convict. Given the alternative of sending them to mars for $200.000 - $600.000 - the cost Elon Musk wants to achieve - it would seem a much easier solution. Whether prisoners would choose a free and self-dependent life on mars, including all necessary equipment, over a life-long imprisoning is debatable. It is also questionable if these convicts are sufficiently mentally stable to create a colony and start a new life by themselves.

Thats not comparable since we have a significant amount of automation today - why send 1000 navvies to build your towns and toil in fields when you can send a tractor and do the same amount of work for much less ongoing maintenance...

It is one thing to be promised a huge reward and another to actually live to recieve it. My point being obviously that if no one will take the risk it may be prudent to make some people an offer they can't refuse.

Mars is signifanctly larger than the USA, has, as of now, nobody claiming ownership and could very likely be used for farming and mines. Using Musk's new rocket, the trip can become affordable for many people. So what is stopping them?

Automation is all nice and stuff, but no tractor runs without maintenance performed by humans. I am sure farmers would love maintenance-free equipment.

It was very risky when Columbus and other explorers went out 3-4-500 years ago. They didn't know what they would find, and thousands of things could go wrong.

Colonizing Mars isn't risky the same way. We know everything already. Landscape, atmosphere, climate, gravity, radiation, duration of commuting etc. From forty years of robotic exploration we know exactly what we have to deal with.

The only "risk" is that stupid engineers for economic or other reasons make shortcuts and don't build in reasonable redundancies to make the whole system reliable. That's how the Moon landings were done, but then we had great luck and happened to avoid catastrophes worse than Apollo 1.

The biggest obstacle will likely be that boredom will make at least some of the Mars travelers go crazy in their head well before arrival. But that's not a risk. That's an obstacle which we know that we have to handle somehow. We normally put such persons into a hospital and strap them down or lock them up in a rubber cell. We must prepare accordingly.

Boredom will only be increased by the fact that the travelers know already before they start that there is no way they can do any new science. They are just dead and useless payload.

BTW, the other day I read in a newspaper a good way to minimize the latter challenge: Give all passengers a window seat.

mxaxai wrote:

There are two things robots cannot do and will likely never be able to:

• Repairing and modifying themselves

wrong. You are just a robot implemented in wetware. Highly advanced and optimized, but there is no real difference. There is nothing going on in your body or brain that can´t in principle be emulated.

Colonizing
Wether humanity should do this is debatable, but living outside of the earth is - by definition - only possible for humans. Contrary to the ocean floor, other plantes CAN support human life themselves. Sure, you need adequate shelter and euqipment to provide water and air conditioning, but once that is provided a large enough group of humans can survive without constant support from earth.

Equally wrong for the same reason. In theory silicon based robots can do exactly what carbon based robots can do.

best regards
Thomas

Another reason Elon Musk wants to colonize Mars -- Let's all run away from the AI robots...

http://www.vanityfair.com/news/2017/03/ ... ai-space-x

Would rather have Musk tell us more about progress on the Falcon Heavy...instead here's some of Elon's many anxieties and rants...

"...Hassabis [an Artificial Intelligence 'creator'] replied that, in fact, he was working on the most important project in the world: developing artificial super-intelligence. Musk countered that this was one reason we needed to colonize Mars—so that we’ll have a bolt-hole if A.I. goes rogue and turns on humanity. Amused, Hassabis said that A.I. would simply follow humans to Mars....This did nothing to soothe Musk’s anxieties (even though he says there are scenarios where A.I. wouldn’t follow)..."

...Lots more paranoia in the above Vanity Fair Article...read it and be afraid enough to get your Mars ticket soon

That's a good article but hardly paranoia, rather a healthy dose of reality for the bobble-heads in Silicon Valley.

I like the fact that "wtf do we do when machines wake up" angst is becoming more and more common in entertainment these days. It's something we need to think about.

treetreeseven wrote:

I like the fact that "wtf do we do when machines wake up" angst is becoming more and more common in entertainment these days. It's something we need to think about.

Zombies and such too.

"Everybody is out to get us" angst in the US is rather well founded by historic and current activities.
I don't see that this will lead to any reasonably way of solving the problem
as the solution to meddling gone pear shaped is ladling on more meddling and preemptive "selfdefense".

As if that would help.

I believe the right way to colonize Mars is to send the machines first. What we've done so far is just scratching the surface and mapping using small rovers.

- First we need to launch communication satellites orbiting Mars, making sure that equipment on the ground always has a way to communicate, with each other and Earth.
- Then we need to launch materials needed for building a suitable Mars base, including maybe 6 advanced 3D printers that can produce materials needed for construction and repairs. 6 printers because we will need at least 3 different variants and sizes, and the double amount for redundancy.
- We need to build multiple construction machines that are the size of a Cat D12 dozer, that run on solar power, and that can mount auxiliary equipment. Drills, diggers, whatever needed for the job. They need to communicate with each other using AI, and they need to be able to learn from their mistakes and improve over time. Kind of like the Tesla fleet learning system. These need to be launched together with large amounts of spare parts.
- We also need even more robots, something along the lines of what Boston Dynamics are making. They will be communicating with the larger machines and each other. They will use AI and learn as they go, and they need to be able to fix the larger machines. If you've paid attention to the evolution of AI lately, this should be possible in the near future.
- These machines will build a base, including communication equipment, laying fiber cables, build green houses, habitats, minerals refineries, solar power plants, everything needed for humans to survive on Mars.
- Launch humans.

treetreeseven wrote:

I like the fact that "wtf do we do when machines wake up" angst is becoming more and more common in entertainment these days. It's something we need to think about.

It goes back to the points of failure arguments. Only by brainstorming these potential scenarios where failure happens can we expect to get safely into the deep future.

I don't think it is wasteful or negative to start considering what would happens with runaway AI. The Asimov robotics rules for AI are a good start, but what happens when an AI becomes self-replicating and can rewrite its own code? It's something I really like about Elon Musk. he dreams big and deep, as well as coming up with novel solutions. If he's putting theories out there then I for one am listening and certainly not rubbishing what he has to say because he's a damned sight smarter than I'll ever be.

Channex757 wrote:

treetreeseven wrote:

I like the fact that "wtf do we do when machines wake up" angst is becoming more and more common in entertainment these days. It's something we need to think about.

It goes back to the points of failure arguments. Only by brainstorming these potential scenarios where failure happens can we expect to get safely into the deep future.

I don't think it is wasteful or negative to start considering what would happens with runaway AI. The Asimov robotics rules for AI are a good start, but what happens when an AI becomes self-replicating and can rewrite its own code? It's something I really like about Elon Musk. he dreams big and deep, as well as coming up with novel solutions. If he's putting theories out there then I for one am listening and certainly not rubbishing what he has to say because he's a damned sight smarter than I'll ever be.

Whilst I love my motorcycles and manual tranny cars as much as the next bloke, AI is where the world is heading and Musk has to be commended for his work in this area.

I recommend Asimov's The Dawn of Robots too. A fantastic read.

JetBuddy wrote:

I believe the right way to colonize Mars is to send the machines first. What we've done so far is just scratching the surface and mapping using small rovers.

- First we need to launch communication satellites orbiting Mars, making sure that equipment on the ground always has a way to communicate, with each other and Earth.
- Then we need to launch materials needed for building a suitable Mars base, including maybe 6 advanced 3D printers that can produce materials needed for construction and repairs. 6 printers because we will need at least 3 different variants and sizes, and the double amount for redundancy.
- We need to build multiple construction machines that are the size of a Cat D12 dozer, that run on solar power, and that can mount auxiliary equipment. Drills, diggers, whatever needed for the job. They need to communicate with each other using AI, and they need to be able to learn from their mistakes and improve over time. Kind of like the Tesla fleet learning system. These need to be launched together with large amounts of spare parts.
- We also need even more robots, something along the lines of what Boston Dynamics are making. They will be communicating with the larger machines and each other. They will use AI and learn as they go, and they need to be able to fix the larger machines. If you've paid attention to the evolution of AI lately, this should be possible in the near future.
- These machines will build a base, including communication equipment, laying fiber cables, build green houses, habitats, minerals refineries, solar power plants, everything needed for humans to survive on Mars.
- Launch humans.

That is if you will not accept death of a person as acceptable. 1 skilled human is worth billions of dollars worth of the most advanced robots. 4-5 people with the proper tools, supplies, and materials can build a starter base, identify important potential minerals and ores, start a fuel supply, science, etc. Hauling heavy machinery to Mars will be extremely cost prohibitive. Best thing to do is bring a 3D printer that can be scaled to make larger items, source material on site, and build bigger and bigger gear as material stockpiles increase. Pretty much go camping on Mars and start a base with what you back pack in. Hard... yup, but that is where humans shine. Innovation, creativity, and survival.

Chaostheory wrote:

I recommend Asimov's The Dawn of Robots too. A fantastic read.

The Robots of Dawn is the book you mean.
I have read most of Asimov's SF and all of his robot stories.

I was scrolling through my feed today and there was an article about growing lambs in an artificial womb for weeks of their gestation period.

If there are any nerds in the bioengineering orbit in this thread, y'all probably know that we're likely to end up dead (or with chloroplasts or something) from genetic engineering gone horribly wrong before the robots kill us as Musk (otherwise rightly) fears.

In 2015, two genetic engineering techniques were demonstrated which I believe will change life on Earth forever and probably soon. Each is revolutionary by itself. Together, they confer power over populations of living things which is practically godlike in its way.

CRISPR is a genome editing technique which grants the power to add or modify genes at arbitrary points in the genome. Gene drives grant the ability to force gene inheritance to near 100% of a population's descendants in one generation. Researchers used CRISPR to insert gene drives into fruit flies which were then allowed to mate. First they tested by changing eye color of a population's offspring, then by adding malaria resistance to a population's offspring... and then by causing infertility in a population's offspring, thus destroying the population.

I think CRISPR + gene drives is a technology more worrisome than nuclear weapons. It also costs a hell of a lot less and is already open source, patents or no patents.

No matter what, things are about to get very weird, very fast. Before gene drives kill us all in one of the many, many ways they could kill us all, I think 3D printing will change everyday life more than the Internet has.

Oroka wrote:

That is if you will not accept death of a person as acceptable. 1 skilled human is worth billions of dollars worth of the most advanced robots. 4-5 people with the proper tools, supplies, and materials can build a starter base, identify important potential minerals and ores, start a fuel supply, science, etc. Hauling heavy machinery to Mars will be extremely cost prohibitive. Best thing to do is bring a 3D printer that can be scaled to make larger items, source material on site, and build bigger and bigger gear as material stockpiles increase. Pretty much go camping on Mars and start a base with what you back pack in. Hard... yup, but that is where humans shine. Innovation, creativity, and survival.

This endevour won't be cheap regardless. Of course humans are worth a lot, but training astronauts and launching them together with human habitats is also going to cost billions. I believe the smartest thing to do is to use robots to prepare the camp/base before humans arrive. Either way, the real milestone is to land humans on Mars - sending heavy machinery doesn't get the same headlines.

Solar panels will not easily power a bulldozer. A large solar array along with battery swapping tech, maybe. Energy is indeed a major problem. In the Mars Trilogy they don't hesitate to send autonomous nuclear reactors for that purpose. Before sending the colonizers (100 men and women if I remember right) they send an enormous amount of stuff, doing that would cost trillions. Small robots digging like animals might work better than a bulldozer.

JetBuddy wrote:

Oroka wrote:

That is if you will not accept death of a person as acceptable. 1 skilled human is worth billions of dollars worth of the most advanced robots. 4-5 people with the proper tools, supplies, and materials can build a starter base, identify important potential minerals and ores, start a fuel supply, science, etc. Hauling heavy machinery to Mars will be extremely cost prohibitive. Best thing to do is bring a 3D printer that can be scaled to make larger items, source material on site, and build bigger and bigger gear as material stockpiles increase. Pretty much go camping on Mars and start a base with what you back pack in. Hard... yup, but that is where humans shine. Innovation, creativity, and survival.

This endevour won't be cheap regardless. Of course humans are worth a lot, but training astronauts and launching them together with human habitats is also going to cost billions. I believe the smartest thing to do is to use robots to prepare the camp/base before humans arrive. Either way, the real milestone is to land humans on Mars - sending heavy machinery doesn't get the same headlines.

You are sending humans either way, so why send a multi billion dollar robotic construction crew when the humans who do the science can also build a base? Is a situation where you are a long way from support, creativity and improvisation is massively important. Dust getting in machinery joints you didnt plan for...? robot has no way to clear it, breaks down. human jams gloved finger in joint and wipes dust off. every human has 3 of the most useful tools on earth. a huge brain and 2 hands with opposable thumbs.

VSMUT wrote:

Of course it is going to be a grim experience. Elon Musk has admitted this. All the people prepared to go to Mars are prepared for the risks, premature death included.
And I respectfully disagree with the mariners of the past not taking as great a risk. They went off, not knowing anything about the continent they were headed for (or even if it was there). The local tribes were hostile, weather and disease almost killed them off and growing anything was difficult. By comparison, we actually know quite a bit about Mars, thanks to the plethora of unmanned missions.

Something similar has been attempted in the past with similar risks and unknown factors.

Australia and America. Look how that turned out.

Just because it's going to be tough is not an excuse for not trying. Nobody seriously expects robots to have built DisneyMars by the time humans get there. Just like Botany Bay, it's going to be horrific at first but settlers work hard and build a life, and it gets progressively better. Won't be instant, people will die. However, once the colony is started it will get that little bit better every day and Elon's idea of constant trips back and forward to Earth helps keep the physical connection there, which is a huge psychological boost.

We won't be sending ill-equipped convicts either.

Aesma wrote:

Solar panels will not easily power a bulldozer. A large solar array along with battery swapping tech, maybe. Energy is indeed a major problem. In the Mars Trilogy they don't hesitate to send autonomous nuclear reactors for that purpose. Before sending the colonizers (100 men and women if I remember right) they send an enormous amount of stuff, doing that would cost trillions. Small robots digging like animals might work better than a bulldozer.

Some of the best companies on the planet with regards to rocket technology, space travel, solar panels, battery technology, autonomous driving and artificial intelligence happens to be.. Elon Musk's SpaceX, Tesla, OpenAI and SolarCity together with the strong cooperation of Panasonic. If anyone could figure this out, it would be them. A large solar array with hot swappable batteries is something these guys could figure out. Add to this Boston Dynamics' robot technology and this could work very well.

Oroka wrote:

You are sending humans either way, so why send a multi billion dollar robotic construction crew when the humans who do the science can also build a base? Is a situation where you are a long way from support, creativity and improvisation is massively important. Dust getting in machinery joints you didnt plan for...? robot has no way to clear it, breaks down. human jams gloved finger in joint and wipes dust off. every human has 3 of the most useful tools on earth. a huge brain and 2 hands with opposable thumbs.

Are you updated on the latest achivements in artificial intelligence and robotics? If so, I don't think you would be this negative towards robots being able to do this (I don't mean this in a derogatory term). We're talking 5-10 years into the future, maybe more. If you look 10 years into the past, versus today's capabilities - you'll see the level of advancement the next 3-5 years will bring. AI and robotics technology is advancing in an exponential curve.

This being said, one of Elon Musk's greatest fears is AI, and he's talked about colonizing Mars to get away from artificial superintelligence - so even though I think this is the best approach, I doubt he'd ever go for it.

Channex757 wrote:

Something similar has been attempted in the past with similar risks and unknown factors.

Australia and America. Look how that turned out.

"...Just like Botany Bay, it's going to be horrific at first but settlers work hard and build a life, and it gets progressively better..."

We hear this over and over again...No it is not the same!

There were already people living in America and Australia long before Europeans settled there. And there was air, easily obtainable fresh water, flaura and fauna, timber, plenty of fish and a pleasant environment for profitable exportation...so sadly, then easily obtainable slave labor to work there.

Now let's see how pleasant life will be on Mars...No air, very difficult to obtain water, deadly radiation, less solar energy, no natives to teach us how to survive (we think), dust storms to muck up mechanical equipment, robots, and sensitive rocket systems and agriculture environs...fine particles will also mess with water purification, and the (laughable) rocket fuel refineries.

Each of these problems could be solved individually, but together they make the exercise a non-starter...nobody's going to make money there as we shall see...Actually we have not heard much from Elon about Mars colonies for a while.

The latest TED talk with Elon Musk, discussing the Mars mission and other things. Elon said the Mars mission is 8-10 years away, although internal targets are even shorter. The payload capacity of the rocket is the same as putting a 747 at MTOW at the tip of the rocket. And he means the entire aircraft including fuel and pax riding into space.

https://www.ted.com/talks/elon_musk_the ... and_boring

QuarkFly wrote:

Channex757 wrote:

Something similar has been attempted in the past with similar risks and unknown factors.

Australia and America. Look how that turned out.

"...Just like Botany Bay, it's going to be horrific at first but settlers work hard and build a life, and it gets progressively better..."

We hear this over and over again...No it is not the same!

There were already people living in America and Australia long before Europeans settled there. And there was air, easily obtainable fresh water, flaura and fauna, timber, plenty of fish and a pleasant environment for profitable exportation...so sadly, then easily obtainable slave labor to work there.

It is exactly the same. The people who went back then didn't know if there would be natives on arrival, or if they would have access to obtainable fresh water, flora, fauna, timber, fish or a pleasant environment for profitable exportation. As it turned out, one place was full of hostile savages, the other place was an outback full of things that try to kill people and very little water.

QuarkFly wrote:

Now let's see how pleasant life will be on Mars...No air, very difficult to obtain water, deadly radiation, less solar energy, no natives to teach us how to survive (we think), dust storms to muck up mechanical equipment, robots, and sensitive rocket systems and agriculture environs...fine particles will also mess with water purification, and the (laughable) rocket fuel refineries.

If they wanted a pleasant trip, then they could go on a cruise. Nobody is selling this trip on false promises of this being easy, safe or pleasant. It is entirely voluntary.

VSMUT wrote:

QuarkFly wrote:

Now let's see how pleasant life will be on Mars...No air, very difficult to obtain water, deadly radiation, less solar energy, no natives to teach us how to survive (we think), dust storms to muck up mechanical equipment, robots, and sensitive rocket systems and agriculture environs...fine particles will also mess with water purification, and the (laughable) rocket fuel refineries.

If they wanted a pleasant trip, then they could go on a cruise. Nobody is selling this trip on false promises of this being easy, safe or pleasant. It is entirely voluntary.

Actually not...Elon Musk promised everybody a joyride...

"...Musk said SpaceX’s spacecraft, with its huge windows, would make the trip an ad­ven­ture....He talked lightly about how the journey has “got to feel fun and exciting. It can’t feel cramped.” He said there would be games passengers could play in zero gravity and a restaurant on board as it sped at 62,634 mph to Mars..."

https://www.washingtonpost.com/news/the ... eaf3a04383

QuarkFly wrote:

There were already people living in America and Australia long before Europeans settled there. And there was air, easily obtainable fresh water, flaura and fauna, timber, plenty of fish and a pleasant environment for profitable exportation...so sadly, then easily obtainable slave labor to work there.

Now let's see how pleasant life will be on Mars...No air, very difficult to obtain water, deadly radiation, less solar energy, no natives to teach us how to survive (we think), dust storms to muck up mechanical equipment, robots, and sensitive rocket systems and agriculture environs...fine particles will also mess with water purification, and the (laughable) rocket fuel refineries.

Each of these problems could be solved individually, but together they make the exercise a non-starter...nobody's going to make money there as we shall see...Actually we have not heard much from Elon about Mars colonies for a while.

would you have been one of those bumptious individuals who, in the early 19th Century, declared that train travel over 20mph would be instantly fatal to the carriage passengers?

or one of those who used to think Botany Bay was a more acceptable form of execution as convicts shipped to Australia would doubtless die off quickly and accomplish nothing?

In short, your reply is rubbish. Utter Luddite garbage. If someone can dream of a solution to a problem (like Elon Musk with his track record) I'll believe that over some anonymous forum poster who can only spout reasons not to try.

Musk has come up with novel solutions to problems and created billions of dollars in real, tangible wealth in doing so. If he can put together a plan and put his considerable prestige behind that, I'll believe it too.

I have no issue with Mars travel but I never understand why people compare the Earth to Mars journey to sea travel in the middle of the last millennia.

Mars isn't a continent where we can travel to whenever we like. There is a very small window of reasonable travel between the two planets. So there will be literally years where there will be no access to a Mars colony and there will be years where there will be no window for the people on Mars to escape if something goes wrong. Nothing is going to change this situation for the foreseeable future either. The route planned with this window is the shortest between the two planets. We're not reasonably guessing where to go and when to leave like many explorers did back in the 15th century so the planned route efficiency is already at it's maximum. The only way to really shorten the travel time is speed but even with faster spacecraft there would still be long closed windows for travel.

izbtmnhd wrote:

Mars isn't a continent where we can travel to whenever we like.

yet.

I wouldn't use terms like luddite, but there's people that have some sort of innate belief that we, as a species, are going to continue cracking problems, and then those that don't.

QuarkFly wrote:

Actually not...Elon Musk promised everybody a joyride...

"...Musk said SpaceX’s spacecraft, with its huge windows, would make the trip an ad­ven­ture....He talked lightly about how the journey has “got to feel fun and exciting. It can’t feel cramped.” He said there would be games passengers could play in zero gravity and a restaurant on board as it sped at 62,634 mph to Mars..."

...referring to the spacecraft and space voyage, not life on the red planet itself...

izbtmnhd wrote:

Mars isn't a continent where we can travel to whenever we like. There is a very small window of reasonable travel between the two planets. So there will be literally years where there will be no access to a Mars colony and there will be years where there will be no window for the people on Mars to escape if something goes wrong.

Travelling to the far ends of the world was a 6 month journey too back in the days. Likewise, you could also only go once every one or two years due to weather patterns, and people back then hadn't the faintest idea that it would ever be possible to shorten the travel time by any meaningful factor. Thats one reason why it makes pretty good sense to compare the two.

angad84 wrote:

I wouldn't use terms like luddite, but there's people that have some sort of innate belief that we, as a species, are going to continue cracking problems, and then those that don't.

It's not that some are luddites or don't think Mars can be done...but beyond a quick flag-planting exercise -- nothing about people living long term on Mars makes any sense. This isn't a Sci-Fi movie, Mars is a lousy place for humans just like the the rest of the Solar System and hardly worth the massive investment involved.

Robots however, would be perfect to propagate the solar system with !!

QuarkFly wrote:

angad84 wrote:

I wouldn't use terms like luddite, but there's people that have some sort of innate belief that we, as a species, are going to continue cracking problems, and then those that don't.

It's not that some are luddites or don't think Mars can be done...but beyond a quick flag-planting exercise -- nothing about people living long term on Mars makes any sense. This isn't a Sci-Fi movie, Mars is a lousy place for humans just like the the rest of the Solar System and hardly worth the massive investment involved.

I guess you are in luck then, because no one is forcing you to go.

I've read through this thread, and while you keep posting with the intent to educate us gullible peons who don't "see through his BS", I can't help but detect a veneer of jealousy common to a lot of his critics. He's not what THEY would do with his fortune, and this idea that he is going full tilt to realize *his* vision bothers so many on a fundamental level it seems, when he "should" be doing what THEY want instead.

I take everything he says with a grain of salt (more than one grain on occasion) but betting against the man is foolish. And did you really expect to see footage like this when SpaceX announced that they would land and re-fly first stages so many years ago? https://www.instagram.com/p/BTjVdLVB1bO/

QuarkFly wrote:

angad84 wrote:

I wouldn't use terms like luddite, but there's people that have some sort of innate belief that we, as a species, are going to continue cracking problems, and then those that don't.

It's not that some are luddites or don't think Mars can be done...but beyond a quick flag-planting exercise -- nothing about people living long term on Mars makes any sense. This isn't a Sci-Fi movie, Mars is a lousy place for humans just like the the rest of the Solar System and hardly worth the massive investment involved.

Robots however, would be perfect to propagate the solar system with !!

Why? Robots do nothing for humanity.

Look, either you buy into the fact that a few centuries or millennia from now we should be cruising around the universe like the folks in Star Trek or Star Wars, or you don't. I say we do whatever it takes to get us to that point. Colonising Mars will definitely be the hardest thing we as a species will have ever attempted, but that doesn't mean it wasn't preceded by a dozen or more "hardest things we as a species have ever attemped" either.

Sure, Mars is a lousy place for humans, but so is Antarctica, so is a submarine underwater for weeks at a time, so is a bunch of dudes on an old wooden sailing ship a few centuries ago. Everything looks hard until it becomes routine. Just because we fly transatlantic at the drop of a hat today doesn't make the problems of the past seem any less insurmountable to the people of the time.

VSMUT wrote:

Travelling to the far ends of the world was a 6 month journey too back in the days. Likewise, you could also only go once every one or two years due to weather patterns, and people back then hadn't the faintest idea that it would ever be possible to shorten the travel time by any meaningful factor. Thats one reason why it makes pretty good sense to compare the two.

It's not the same thing.

Imagine if mid-millennia sea voyagers had to deal with the fact that the Americas or Australia were moving away from Europe. Then imagine as the continents moved away after a certain distance a disturbance arose that caused these sea voyagers to turn around every time (Sun). This is Mars travel.

There is a one month window to launch. Then 2 year+ waiting period. This isn't a variable like weather or sea currents. There's no technology even in the long term to shorten this window.

Colonizing Mars and terraforming the planet will teach us a lot about how valuable and precious our own Earth is as well. And we will learn how to take care of our own planet in the process. I look at the Mars missions in two ways; not only making humankind interplanetary - but also learn how to fix our own homeworld. A Mars mission is extremely important on so many levels.

izbtmnhd wrote:

Imagine if mid-millennia sea voyagers had to deal with the fact that the Americas or Australia were moving away from Europe. Then imagine as the continents moved away after a certain distance a disturbance arose that caused these sea voyagers to turn around every time (Sun).

The earliest sea voyagers didn't even KNOW where the next landmass was going to be!

We know where Mars is and will be with near 100% certainty, it's just a matter of planning for the trip.

angad84 wrote:

izbtmnhd wrote:

Imagine if mid-millennia sea voyagers had to deal with the fact that the Americas or Australia were moving away from Europe. Then imagine as the continents moved away after a certain distance a disturbance arose that caused these sea voyagers to turn around every time (Sun).

The earliest sea voyagers didn't even KNOW where the next landmass was going to be!

We know where Mars is and will be with near 100% certainty, it's just a matter of planning for the trip.

We do know where it is and for every two years there is a just one month window to launch. Sea travel was not like that. Once you knew where to go if you HAD to travel you could leave almost any time of the year. Eventually we found faster modes of transportation that eliminated these travel issues as well. It's not possible with Mars or any planet in the Solar System because of the orbits of the planets around the sun. There's no way to adjust the window without outright altering the orbits of the planets or building an object that orbits the sun at a different pace as docking station. Either way, this isn't happening for a long, long time.

It's like the previous comments about some future being like Star Trek and Star Wars. We're so used to our tiny human scale many on this planet we don't understand how difficult it is to travel anywhere in the Universe even at the incredible speeds near light. We're talking years just to travel to our local group of stars. Hollywood makes it look too simple.

I'm all for interplanetary travel but it shouldn't be sold as something simple or done before. It's hasn't. If we successfully plant a human on Mars, there will be no comparable event in human history.

izbtmnhd wrote:

We do know where it is and for every two years there is a just one month window to launch. Sea travel was not like that. Once you knew where to go if you HAD to travel you could leave almost any time of the year.

Sail-based voyages were heavily dictated by prevailing winds and weather phenomena which changed from month to month. You won't even have to look for very long routes to find that prevailing winds limit the effective number of round trips to only one per year. Arab merchants headed to East Africa would come down with the monsoon in the winter, which would also prevent their return until the summer where the winds turn to the north.

Even once we get past that point, the first fleet of settlers/convicts headed to Australia in 1787/1788 took over 8 months to reach the destination. So assuming the same fleet of ships had to keep them in contact with the rest of the world, it would be at least 16 months, plus whatever time they needed to refit and restock the ships, and wait for prevailing winds to turn in their favour, before they could be back again.

VSMUT wrote:

izbtmnhd wrote:

We do know where it is and for every two years there is a just one month window to launch. Sea travel was not like that. Once you knew where to go if you HAD to travel you could leave almost any time of the year.

Sail-based voyages were heavily dictated by prevailing winds and weather phenomena which changed from month to month. You won't even have to look for very long routes to find that prevailing winds limit the effective number of round trips to only one per year. Arab merchants headed to East Africa would come down with the monsoon in the winter, which would also prevent their return until the summer where the winds turn to the north.

Even once we get past that point, the first fleet of settlers/convicts headed to Australia in 1787/1788 took over 8 months to reach the destination. So assuming the same fleet of ships had to keep them in contact with the rest of the world, it would be at least 16 months, plus whatever time they needed to refit and restock the ships, and wait for prevailing winds to turn in their favour, before they could be back again.

You're really missing my point. Weather is a variable. The location of the planets are constants. Once the window to Mars is shut it's shut completely until the next window. This situation is not comparable sea travel.

izbtmnhd wrote:

You're really missing my point. Weather is a variable. The location of the planets are constants. Once the window to Mars is shut it's shut completely until the next window. This situation is not comparable sea travel.

Not really. Its not weather, it is seasons, which are predictable and you get largely the same pattern year after year. There are only certain parts of the year you could sail east or west, there are only certain points in Earth and Mars' orbits that you can make that voyage. It is a repeating cycle, just on a longer time scale, but considering the vast distance... it is forgivable.

izbtmnhd wrote:

VSMUT wrote:

izbtmnhd wrote:

We do know where it is and for every two years there is a just one month window to launch. Sea travel was not like that. Once you knew where to go if you HAD to travel you could leave almost any time of the year.

Sail-based voyages were heavily dictated by prevailing winds and weather phenomena which changed from month to month. You won't even have to look for very long routes to find that prevailing winds limit the effective number of round trips to only one per year. Arab merchants headed to East Africa would come down with the monsoon in the winter, which would also prevent their return until the summer where the winds turn to the north.

Even once we get past that point, the first fleet of settlers/convicts headed to Australia in 1787/1788 took over 8 months to reach the destination. So assuming the same fleet of ships had to keep them in contact with the rest of the world, it would be at least 16 months, plus whatever time they needed to refit and restock the ships, and wait for prevailing winds to turn in their favour, before they could be back again.

You're really missing my point. Weather is a variable. The location of the planets are constants. Once the window to Mars is shut it's shut completely until the next window. This situation is not comparable sea travel.

That is true if, and only if, you only care about low energy transfer orbits to mars.

If you want to supply more energy, there is no such thing as a "closed window" - you can launch when you like, if you can supply enough energy for that particular transfer...

The best low energy window occurs every 2 years and 2 months - add more energy and you get more options.

Aesma wrote:

Solar panels will not easily power a bulldozer. A large solar array along with battery swapping tech, maybe. Energy is indeed a major problem. In the Mars Trilogy they don't hesitate to send autonomous nuclear reactors for that purpose. Before sending the colonizers (100 men and women if I remember right) they send an enormous amount of stuff, doing that would cost trillions. Small robots digging like animals might work better than a bulldozer.

Your memory is correct, but they did have a mission before that already.

I also do like their economic system they come up later in Green and Blue Mars.

Best regards
Thomas

moo wrote:

The best low energy window occurs every 2 years and 2 months - add more energy and you get more options.

Also that doesn't have to be much more energy ....


Best regards
Thomas

izbtmnhd wrote:

You're really missing my point. Weather is a variable. The location of the planets are constants. Once the window to Mars is shut it's shut completely until the next window. This situation is not comparable sea travel.

I'm not missing any points here, you are. Oroka hit the nail on the head, you can pretty much set your calendar by the prevailing weather patterns. Local weather might vary from day to day, but a local breeze won't get you anywhere.

Oroka wrote:

izbtmnhd wrote:

You're really missing my point. Weather is a variable. The location of the planets are constants. Once the window to Mars is shut it's shut completely until the next window. This situation is not comparable sea travel.

Not really. Its not weather, it is seasons, which are predictable and you get largely the same pattern year after year. There are only certain parts of the year you could sail east or west, there are only certain points in Earth and Mars' orbits that you can make that voyage. It is a repeating cycle, just on a longer time scale, but considering the vast distance... it is forgivable.

Seasons are weather! You even say it further down the sentence: "Largely the same (weather) pattern". That's a much different animal than the exact location of the planets. Weather patterns change and windows can open because of it's irregularity. The location of the planets don't work like that. It's either launch or no launch.

VSMUT wrote:

izbtmnhd wrote:

You're really missing my point. Weather is a variable. The location of the planets are constants. Once the window to Mars is shut it's shut completely until the next window. This situation is not comparable sea travel.

I'm not missing any points here, you are. Oroka hit the nail on the head, you can pretty much set your calendar by the prevailing weather patterns. Local weather might vary from day to day, but a local breeze won't get you anywhere.

How can Oroka hit the nail on the head? Seasons aren't weather according to that person yet you are talking about the weather!

moo wrote:

That is true if, and only if, you only care about low energy transfer orbits to mars.

If you want to supply more energy, there is no such thing as a "closed window" - you can launch when you like, if you can supply enough energy for that particular transfer...

The best low energy window occurs every 2 years and 2 months - add more energy and you get more options.

Due the location of Mars to Earth there will always be a closed window no matter the speed. First, humans can't get close to the Sun so paths that curve toward that giant gassy orb are out of the question. Second, there's a limit to how fast you want to travel to Mars if we're talking super high energy travel.

That being said we're decades and probably centuries away (unless another Einstein comes along to solve the massive energy loss from high energy particle collisions) from the energy travel you are talking about. Or we could strap 200 nukes to Elon's rocket and simulate the effect on humans of a Sun flyby now.

izbtmnhd wrote:

How can Oroka hit the nail on the head? Seasons aren't weather according to that person yet you are talking about the weather!

Well what on earth do you think changes from season to season if not the weather?!? That comment is about as stupid as Quarkfly stating that you can't grow plants/crops in an artificial environment.