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: 2) by naubol on Tuesday September 22 2015, @12:01PM
Yeah, but what about the 'spinoffs', is that factored in? Third link is an interesting explanation that NASA's budget is net-negative (by a whole heckuva lot)w
http://www.businessinsider.com/everyday-items-developed-by-nasa-2012-8 [businessinsider.com]
https://spinoff.nasa.gov/ [nasa.gov]
http://www.nasa.gov/home/hqnews/2007/sep/HQ_07193_Griffin_lecture.html [nasa.gov]
(Score: 2) by VLM on Tuesday September 22 2015, @01:12PM
Yeah, but what about the 'spinoffs', is that factored in?
One interesting idea is if we can live in a civilized reasonably comfortable advanced lifestyle colony on the inhospitable surface of Mars, we should be able to leverage that technology to colonize Detroit, Baltimore, the -istan countries, antarctica...
I'm semi-serious about this, if you think you can build an arcology or biosphere that would work on Mars, maybe start homesteading in Detroit first and not worry so much about oxygen and water. The challenges of site security would more or less match the challenges of living in a vacuum on another planet, with some obvious variations. So you wear a bullet proof vest instead of a space suit, same difference. Or you need protective covers for the solar panels to protect against gunshots instead of dust storms, same difference.
So start building a self contained greenhouse and machine shop and solar power plant and then social structures like kids schools and religious sites and whatever else right in the hood of Detroit, and see if anyone survives.
It would make an interesting "reality TV" plot. "OK suckas, now that you tv show volunteeers are all here, I'm sad to report that the studio execs don't have enough budget for an actual rocket launch. And we don't have enough dough for real sealed space colony gear. But we can drop you on this partially abandoned block in Detroit and leave you a shitload of sci fi props and you can compete for challenges that boil down to lets pretend we're living on Mars, think of it like Big Brother with a Star Trek theme, kinda"
(Score: 1, Flamebait) by Runaway1956 on Tuesday September 22 2015, @02:18PM
Aren't there natives in Detroit? I think it will be safer to colonize Mars.
Abortion is the number one killed of children in the United States.
(Score: 3, Interesting) by TheRaven on Tuesday September 22 2015, @04:49PM
sudo mod me up
(Score: 2) by naubol on Tuesday September 22 2015, @09:55PM
I admit the possibility that the money could be better spent on basic research, however much modern tech seems to depend on us being in space, and I, for one, would still like to have all that we have learned about physics from space telescopes, despite their insane costs.
I am no expert on what we would not have but for NASA, however the Hubble telescope seems to single handedly justify the cost. The data from it already collected may yet yield enormous fruit that would otherwise be out of reach if we confined our basic science subsidization to terrestrial experiments.
Beyond that, I am hopeful that we, as a species, will one day find and reside on another planet, even if I am in rare company in this regard.