from the curiosity-will-get-the-best-of-you dept.
Many hopefuls have signed up for a one-way ticket to the red planet. But if they aren't prepared, the trip may be a short one.
NASA has a plan to land astronauts on its surface by the 2030s. Private spaceflight companies like SpaceX have also expressed interest in starting their own colonies there, while the infamous Mars One project has already enlisted civilians for a one-way trip to our planetary neighbor in 2020.
While many may dream of living their remaining days on Mars, those days may be numbered. The Martian environment poses significant challenges to Earth life, and establishing a Mars habitat will require an extraordinary amount of engineering prowess and technological knowhow to ensure the safety of its residents.
Though we may soon have the launch vehicles needed to transport people to Mars, a lot of the technology required to keep astronauts alive on the planet just isn't ready--and it may not be for many years. For those eager to get to Mars as soon as possible, take caution: A number of tragic outcomes await if you head that way too soon.
(Score: 4, Interesting) by physicsmajor on Thursday May 28 2015, @06:10AM
Sadly, Mars One is trying to fake their way to Mars with press releases and news coverage.
They are distracting the public from real progress being made toward these goals, and I fear what the fallout of their inevitable failure will do to public perception of actual, feasible projects.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by mhajicek on Friday May 29 2015, @04:07AM
Why the focus on Mars? I firmly believe Luna should be colonized first.
The spacelike surfaces of time foliations can have a cusp at the surface of discontinuity. - P. Hajicek
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 28 2015, @06:18AM
great Hollywood movies.
So it won't matter if they fail.
The entertainment will be worth the risks.
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 28 2015, @07:09AM
makes for such great entertainment, it's a shame it doesn't happen more often in the real world.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by isostatic on Thursday May 28 2015, @09:32AM
In the 1980s 37 people died in Hollywood from accidents filing. That's more than the number who have died in the space industry since 1957. Hollywood didn't shit down for years at every death though.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 28 2015, @09:51AM
37 people of how many?
The number of people who died from Polonium ingestion during the last 20 years was significantly lower than the number of people who died from car accidents during the same time. Should I conclude that eating Polonium is safer than driving?
(Score: 2) by Zinho on Thursday May 28 2015, @03:36PM
Reminds me of a joke:
What's the difference between an American actuary and a Russian actuary?
The American can tell you how many people will die [soa.org] of Polonium ingestion next year.
The Russian can tell you their names. [wikipedia.org]
"Space Exploration is not endless circles in low earth orbit." -Buzz Aldrin
(Score: 2) by isostatic on Friday May 29 2015, @09:05AM
It's not about which is safer - if we were concerned about needless deaths we'd ban McDonalds. It's about what is acceptable. I see no reason that deaths in Hollywood are acceptable, but deaths in space aren't.
(Score: 1, Funny) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 28 2015, @06:19AM
You'll even have fantasies about alien civilizations, as you requested. But in the end, back on Earth you'll be lobotomized.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 28 2015, @06:25AM
Hahahhahhahah yes!
(Score: 1, Interesting) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 28 2015, @09:11AM
What about the following easy solution to the O2/CO2 problem:
Burn the non-edible parts of the plants to produce energy and CO2 while consuming O2. Since the total amount of carbon is a constant, the only place where the carbon can be stored by the plants, other than in the edible parts (which will be converted back to CO2 by human metabolism, or later by bacteria feeding on the excrements) would be the non-edible parts.
(Score: 2) by threedigits on Thursday May 28 2015, @11:18AM
I believe that there's no "non-edible" parts. What will not be consumed by humans will be, as you pointed out, by bacteria. Bacterial digestion is roughly equivalent to burning, albeit slower. Also, burning down biomass tends to release pollutants (NOx) besides the CO2.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 28 2015, @03:44PM
The carbon must accumulate somewhere. So if it is not in non-edible parts of the plants, where is it then?
If it accumulates in the people, there's also a simple solution: They just have to do some sports so they don't get fat. ;-)
(Score: 4, Informative) by lothmordor on Thursday May 28 2015, @09:12AM
Ugh. I seriously dislike articles like this. If Popular Science is trying to say, "Mars won't be open for tourism for a while." then I guess they make a good point.
However, I believe they are doing a disservice to the people actually trying to make humans a multi-planetary species. Certainly, there are some hard engineering problems to solve - but they -are- solvable, and we don't need 30 years to do it before we send the first manned missions. Most of the issues brought up in the article are far less serious than the author implies, or are only brought up in light of the laughable Mars One program.
Entry, Descent and Landing - This is hard. Propulsive landing is likely the way to go, and almost certainly what SpaceX has in mind. Of course, whichever EDL system is chosen will need to be demonstrated first using an unmanned craft.
Freezing to Death - This complaint is almost an engineering detail. We know how to build insulation and heaters. Optimizing the system to be lightweight and use power sparingly is important but this isn't a show stopper.
Starving due to insufficient CO2 for crops - This is a problem only for Mars One, not a serious mission. A serious mission will bring enough food for several years, with a resupply option from Earth. For longer term self-sufficiency, pumping in a little bit of the 96% CO2 Martian atmosphere is a no-brainer.
Suffocation due to too much oxygen - Again, this is only a problem for the reality TV show. Excess O2 would be removed and stored for a variety of needs or vented outside. The ISS life support system [wikipedia.org] and submarines are good examples showing we know how to maintain a breathable atmosphere.
Radiation Exposure - Radiation is a real problem, but it is also a manageable one. Smart design of the spacecraft can minimize in-space crew radiation exposure by keeping cargo mass between the Sun and living quarters, but some cosmic ray exposure is unavoidable. On the surface, radiation is less of a worry thanks to the atmosphere and the planet blocking the sun at night, but a long duration mission or permanent colony would still want some sort of shielding. Likely this would involve burying most structures.
Unfortunately, I feel articles like this feeds fuel to politicians that want Mars as a goal - but not as a destination. Just another feasibility study, another research program, another facility in their district to pour federal dollars into the local economy.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 28 2015, @09:31AM
Especially with quoting temperatures on the poles. There's an extremely easy way to avoid those: Just don't try to settle at the poles.
Quoting this article: [space.com]
Let's compare it with temperatures we know from earth: [wikipedia.org]
So the lower temperatures are just in the same order of magnitude as on Mars equator, but the highest ones are much colder than the highest ones on Mars. Any yet Vostok station seems to survive those conditions.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by kaszz on Thursday May 28 2015, @10:24AM
The poles is likely a place where any expedition would have to land or at least venture because that's where the water is.
(Score: 4, Insightful) by looorg on Thursday May 28 2015, @10:02AM
Considering it takes between 5 and 20 minutes to get a message back to earth you'll already be dead when we hear about it. So in space nobody can hear you scream, until your tragedy gets made into a sci-fi movie. Then you'll die with sound and lensflares.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by kaszz on Thursday May 28 2015, @10:32AM
The key is to bring equipment that can make use of the resources that are there be it sand, sunlight, perchlorate, lava tubes or frozen H2O etc. One could even reduce the weight and thus efficiency of this equipment and use them during a long time through a robotic mission to prepare for a future settlement.
As for radiation protection in space. Get rocks from a asteroid or moon and make sure it's 4 meters thick. Then launch for Mars orbit. Once there one does the surface trip during a low radiation window. Same goes for surface existence. Partially melt the dust into a solid structure on the surface or make use of existing lava tubes.
For more advances uses one might melt the dust into iron and other components through gravity separation.
(Score: 5, Insightful) by Phoenix666 on Thursday May 28 2015, @11:36AM
We have already seen examples of drones and 3D printers building structures on Earth. Why not send machines to Mars to do the same thing, and have a nice, viable base all ready and waiting for the humans when they arrive? The machines can use local materials, simply burrowing into the regolith if nothing else. Spray some expanding foam on the walls of the chambers you've excavated, put a pressure lock on the entrance, and the structure of the base would be there.
There is an 8 minute delay for signals to travel back and forth to Mars, but we've had a pretty good number of years now that we've been working around that with the Mars rovers. I understand it's easier said than done to build a base with robots and telepresence, but it seems much easier to do than having to solve all the problems surrounding sustaining human life on Mars while the humans are there, racing against time and hoping they brought everything they need.
Just because the astronauts in the Moon program risked their lives to get there doesn't mean we have to do it the same way. We have different tools now and can tackle space exploration and colonization a different way.
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 28 2015, @01:38PM
We have already seen examples of drones and 3D printers building structures on Earth. Why not send machines to Mars to do the same thing, and have a nice, viable base all ready and waiting for the humans when they arrive? The machines can use local materials, simply burrowing into the regolith if nothing else. Spray some expanding foam on the walls of the chambers you've excavated, put a pressure lock on the entrance, and the structure of the base would be there.
Have you seen anything close to this on Earth? I know I haven't heard of any substantial buildings being built purely by stand alone robots outside of a factory. Now imagine they don't have the swathes of refined metals and plastics and everything else available on earth. Now imagine there is that communications delay you describe. Now imagine a single defect would result in an uninhabitable structure due to Mars not having a helpful oxygenated atmosphere.
If on Earth somebody had managed to create a fully habitable cave with no human hands touching anything prior to the final product I would be impressed enough. I could possibly believe that somebody with the time and money could do that on Earth. I don't think that is possible with present technology on Mars.
(Score: 4, Informative) by Phoenix666 on Thursday May 28 2015, @05:43PM
Nobody has built a habitable cave on Earth with robots because it is more cost effective here to build outside houses with humans. On Mars, the cost-benefit calculus is different. Also, if you build it with robots and there's a flaw (say, a leak) in the underground structure, nobody dies because robots don't need to breathe; then, you use the robots to fix the leak. You don't send humans to live in it until your robots give green lights all down the checklist.
For reference (inspiration?) here are a couple examples of robots building structures here on Earth:
Drones build structure:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xvN9Ri1GmuY [youtube.com]
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W18Z3UnnS_0 [youtube.com]
3D-printed structures:
http://www.bdcnetwork.com/robots-drones-and-printed-buildings-promise-automated-construction [bdcnetwork.com]
https://futurevision.rga.com/2014/06/3d-printing-drones-can-build-homes/ [rga.com]
Making concrete on Mars:
http://www.iflscience.com/space/robots-could-use-3d-printing-build-mars-bases-astronauts-arrive [iflscience.com]
Robotic excavators:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cVvMkBYYhfU [youtube.com]
Washington DC delenda est.
(Score: 2) by Alfred on Thursday May 28 2015, @02:46PM
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 28 2015, @03:27PM
Which contains the word "You" in an unflattering but over-generalized way, such as "Mistakes You're Still Making with Your Diet". That invites the reader to think, "How do they even know what I'm eating?", but many of them click thru anyway.
This technique is especially absurd when it comes to travel to Mars. "How You will die on Mars"? I can state confidently that I'll never be there.
(Score: 1, Touché) by Anonymous Coward on Thursday May 28 2015, @03:47PM
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Generic_you [wikipedia.org]