SoylentNews is people
SoylentNews
Ed Regis writes in the New York Times that today we an witnessing an outburst of enthusiasm over the literally outlandish notion that in the relatively near future, some of us are going to be living, working, thriving and dying on Mars. But unfortunately Mars mania reflects an excessively optimistic view of what it actually takes to travel to and live on Mars, papering over many of the harsh realities and bitter truths that underlie the dream. "First, there is the tedious business of getting there. Using current technology and conventional chemical rockets, a trip to Mars would be a grueling, eight- to nine-month-long nightmare for the crew," writes Regis. "Tears, sweat, urine and perhaps even solid waste will be recycled, your personal space is reduced to the size of an SUV., and you and your crewmates are floating around sideways, upside down and at other nauseating angles." According to Regis every source of interpersonal conflict, and emotional and psychological stress that we experience in ordinary, day-to-day life on Earth will be magnified exponentially by restriction to a tiny, hermetically sealed, pressure-cooker capsule hurtling through deep space and to top it off, despite these constraints, the crew must operate within an exceptionally slim margin of error with continuous threats of equipment failures, computer malfunctions, power interruptions and software glitches.
But getting there is the easy part says Regis. "Mars is a dead, cold, barren planet on which no living thing is known to have evolved, and which harbors no breathable air or oxygen, no liquid water and no sources of food, nor conditions favorable for producing any. For these and other reasons it would be accurate to call Mars a veritable hell for living things, were it not for the fact that the planet's average surface temperature is minus 81 degrees Fahrenheit." These are only a few of the many serious challenges that must be overcome before anyone can put human beings on Mars and expect them to live for more than five minutes says Regis. "The notion that we can start colonizing Mars within the next 10 years or so is an overoptimistic, delusory idea that falls just short of being a joke."
(Score: 1, Insightful) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 22 2015, @11:31AM
The thing about science and engineering is that we keep making things better. Is the author claiming that we should *never* go to Mars? Because never is a long freakin' time.
At some point, we - humanity as a whole - will possess enough technology and knowledge to be able to do it. The real question is, at what point will we be ready? When will we be able to go - and survive? And if are able to do so, why wouldn't we?
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 22 2015, @11:55AM
Judging from the summary, my answer is: No.
Here are some revealing quotes (emphasis by me):
However regarding the first quote, one has to admit that assuming you get there, dying on Mars won't be that hard to achieve. ;-)
(Score: 3, Insightful) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday September 22 2015, @02:00PM
Dying on earth is a cakewalk. Everyone does it.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 1, Informative) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 22 2015, @03:26PM
Not everyone. Three people (Georgi Dobrovolski, Viktor Patsayev and Vladislav Volkov) died in space. [space.com]
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 22 2015, @01:43PM
No, but that's what the many dumbass dipshit lemmings here think. As you say, you go when you are technologically ready to go. In the progress to fly, you don't just cover your arms with feathers and wax and jump off of cliffs, and when one dies doing that, you don't keep trying it. You can't even survive in a self-sufficient manner in ISS. Do that first. Build a platform in LEO (or MEO or GEO) and show you can live there for a year or more without mission resupply (even better, show that you can successfully [wikipedia.org] do that on the Earth first before sucking up useful science funding building another useless orbiting platform). Then set up a base on the Moon and show you can live there, because that is relatively close by but steps up the technological challenges by an order of magnitude. Then maybe think about going to Mars, but in the intervening decades, send regular rovers to Mars.
The only reasonable approach to going to Mars will not happen in most of our lifetimes. Sure, you can do a one-off suicide mission to plant the flag of humanity, or whatever that gives you that warm-and-fuzzy feeling, hail those who died on transit or shortly after getting there, and then what? You've checked-off something on your arbitrary humanity bucket list and now you can advocate sending a suicide trip to Europa or somewhere else, but know that you've done jack shit on advancing the species towards being able to "get off this rock". You want a sustainable base on Mars? It will take 50 to 100 years of development and demonstration, but the loudest whiners here have the mindset of adolescent humanities majors come off of reading their most recent science fiction novel, without the least inkling of the challenges nor the vision to pull it off.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 22 2015, @03:44PM
More than anything, getting there requires the desire to go there. We won't strive to create the technology to go there if we're not trying to go there. By making plans to go there ASAP, technology rushes to provide solutions to make it possible. Its quite possible to go there right now, with technology from the 80s; it wouldn't be a comfortable ride, but its possible. But unless we want to do it, better technology to make it easier and more sustainable will never be created.
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 22 2015, @04:49PM
But if your plan depends upon Unobtainium and Magic Pixie Dust, it is hard to generate enthusiasm for much action.
(Score: 3, Insightful) by kurenai.tsubasa on Tuesday September 22 2015, @11:32PM
No, instead we hope to increase funding for scientific research and advances in engineering.
The problems preventing a viable manned mission to Mars, either with a return trip or intention for long-term habitation, are not insurmountable. Unobtainium and magic pixie dust are not needed.
In the case of a return trip, I would still support a manned mission for no other reason than it's one thing to know about a place and another thing entirely to have been to a place. I know all about Angkor Wat, but I would still love to go there myself one day, even if the only thing I return with are pictures and a story or two. Same thing with Mars. In fact, we already have the pictures. It's the sense of adventure. Think about the engineering accomplishments that could be had by designing a craft that could land on another planet and safely return the crew to Earth.
In the case of habitation, it's more complicated. Yet there I also don't see the obstacles as being insurmountable.
In either case, it's all about budget. Scrap the F-35 immediately and redirect the funding to efforts to send a manned mission to Mars. Scrap the drug war immediately and redirect the funding. I could go on. The point is: tell the engineers and scientists to get a crew to Mars and back safely, and throw whatever they need at them. If that happened, it might actually make sense to push kids into STEM careers.
(Score: 2) by Joe Desertrat on Tuesday September 22 2015, @05:28PM
The only reasonable approach to going to Mars will not happen in most of our lifetimes. Sure, you can do a one-off suicide mission to plant the flag of humanity, or whatever that gives you that warm-and-fuzzy feeling, hail those who died on transit or shortly after getting there, and then what?
Yes, but if we plant OUR flag there first we can claim it is OURS! Those brave astronauts will be HEROES! [INSERT CHANT OF NATIONAL PRIDE]! [INSERT CHANT OF NATIONAL PRIDE]! [INSERT CHANT OF NATIONAL PRIDE]!
(Score: 0) by Anonymous Coward on Tuesday September 22 2015, @10:04PM
And then in 40 years we'll have conspiracy nutters saying the Mars landing was a government hoax, and they can prove it because shadows, and the flag waving, and they saw the studio it was filmed in.
(Score: 2) by NotSanguine on Tuesday September 22 2015, @10:27PM
And then in 40 years we'll have conspiracy nutters saying the Mars landing was a government hoax, and they can prove it because shadows, and the flag waving, and they saw the studio it was filmed in.
Been there. Done that. Read the book. Actually, I only saw the movie [wikipedia.org].
No, no, you're not thinking; you're just being logical. --Niels Bohr